 All right, we'll get started and good morning again. Thank you, Dave. Good morning, everyone. This is a meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and we are holding this meeting today virtually, so we'll do a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Great, and good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, I'm here. Okay. We're going to call to order then this meeting on December 22nd. Happy holidays, everyone. We're well into at least one major faith holiday and going into others. So again, happy holidays to everyone. And this will be, I think, we expect to have one short meeting next week, but otherwise we'll really begin our cadence of public meetings in the new year. So I am calling to order public meeting number 416 and we'll start with three sets of minutes. Good morning, Secretary Hill. Good morning, Madam Chair. So what I'm gonna do, if it's all right with everybody, I'm gonna do two separate motions because the first two meetings, two of our members were not on the commission yet, and then I'll do the September 22nd separate, if that's all right with everybody. So with that said, I'll just pull up my notes here. Thank you for your patience. So Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the March 3rd, 2022 and March 10, 222 public meetings that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any edits or questions on that? I've got a chance to look at them. Okay. All right. I assume that's no to edits. No edits. Yeah. Yes, I look to no edit. Thank you so much. All right. So Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. And I vote. Oh, commissioner, I'm sorry. Commissioner Skinner. I abstain, please. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. I also abstain. Okay. And I vote yes. So three zero and two abstentions. I'm going to share here. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the September 22, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections or typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Thanks. Any questions or edits on this set? All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. I thought it was, I think on the sports office. Oh, the September 22nd meeting. Yeah, September 22nd meeting, thank you. Thank you. Aye. Okay, you wish to, yes, thank you. And that's a fair, fair confusion. We've got a lot of it in front of us. So I and I vote yes. So five zero on that one. Thank you so much. Okay, then we're gonna move ahead to our legal division. If we haven't said enough to all of you, and that includes of course our outside council at A&K, we are very, very appreciative of all the work that you're accomplishing on a very fast cadence and with such thoroughness and thoughtfulness. We thank you. And again, wish you a happy holidays, Mina and to all the team at A&K and to our legal team, we just wanna continue to extend our appreciation and thanks. All right, let's get started. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. You have several regulations in your packet for discussion today. We're going to begin with 205 CMR 147, uniform standards of sports wagering. This regulation provides the general parameters for wagers that may be offered by sports wagering operators. I just wanna note that particularly with respect to this regulation and 205 CMR 248, which we'll also be discussing, these were a real collaboration among GLI, A&K and internal stakeholders. So I do just wanna thank everyone for their input on these regulations. So 205 CMR 147 includes among many other things, identifying these sporting events on which operators may offer wagering, implementing the statutory mandate that operators adopt comprehensive house rules for sports wagering, providing a process by which an operator may request that the commission approve wagering on new sporting events or new categories of wagering and explaining the process by which operators may accept and process wagers. So I'm gonna turn it over to Minum Karius from Anderson and Krieger to walk us through this regulation in more detail. Thank you Kari and good morning everyone and happy holidays to you as well. As Kari said, this was a collaboration with a lot of input from GLI and their expertise and how other states that have implemented sports wagering have laid out these rules. This is not quite as long as last week's regulation but it is still a fairly dense regulation that says there's a lot going on in about 10 pages. I will walk through some of the highlights. I would just ask the rest of our team, Todd and Kari and of course the GLI folks to stop me if I'm going past something that we had intended to talk about that I missed. But again, these are, as Kari mentioned these are the set of rules for permissible wagering in the Commonwealth as proposed. So starting off, this is at pages 33, 31, excuse me, it's the first page of this in your packet. And I won't put it up on the screen unless that's preferable for others, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, you're muted, sorry. My apologies. There we go. Is everyone able to review the ranks at the same time? Okay, back down the screen. Yes, I think that works best. It worked really well in the day, Mina. So thank you. As long as you can press on the page, that would be great. Yeah, sure. So starting at page 31, 247.01 lays out that in very broad terms, the types of wagering that are authorized and tracks 23N, there are certain provisions in 23N regarding what can and can't be wagered on in Massachusetts which that does differ a little bit state to state. For instance, you'll see sort of in the offset columns here collegiate or sport or athletic events can only be wagered on with respect to the actual games, you can't wager for instance on the outcome of an individual collegiate athlete. That's one example of the rules here. So that's Mina, before you get into more detail, just for point of clarification, my understanding is this sets out the framework for what's authorized. We're not actually voting today to say all of these are authorized in the book. That's my understanding. I just want to get that out on the record. You stole my next line, Commissioner. Oh, sorry. It's okay. That's what happens when you start with number two instead of number one. That's fair. So item one here is really, it gets at that. So there's a list of what's prohibited, but you're right. This does not actually tell you everything that can happen. The process laid out in 01 and then it shows up again in a few places which I'll bring up for kind of special cases. Remember that the operators will be providing house rules, they'll be providing internal, they are providing internal controls and they'll also be asking for authorization for particular wagers. The way this is currently set up in 247.01 is that you are not voting today on which of these categories are permitted that will have to happen at a later time, presumably starting in January. And we Carrie and Todd and I, we've talked about this quite a bit that the setup for that could happen in a variety of ways, could be categorical, all MLB games, I'm just making up a category to make it easy or particular events. So that helps. And then of course, the types of wagering in it. What this is intended to do is to give clarity to the public and to operators of what may not be wagered on because by statute you couldn't authorize it. And then to the extent that there are some things you might authorize in the future, for instance, virtual sports, there are some parameter or eSports, there are some parameters under which you might be, would authorize or would it? So that takes care of really 01. That takes care of really 01. Again, we could go through the list, but you'll see sort of the things that we've talked about. You can't, for instance, we'll be betting on injuries, penalties, player discipline, high school and youth sports, which was covered in the statute. And then again at I, you get the reminder that nothing can be wagered on unless it's been approved by the commission for any special sporting. Madam chair. Yes, commissioner Hill. Meena, can you just clarify for me, could sometimes I get a little confused? So when I'm looking that you can't put a bet on a horse race, what's the difference between this section and we go and we bet on horse races every day here in Massachusetts? Sure, question, commissioner Hill. This is intended to say that, that you can't do sports waging or sports book bet on a sports race. It doesn't change the simulcast and horse racing rules that you already implement and regulate through your authority under chapters 128 and C, right? So this is the intention and this showed up, it's actually came up quite a bit when we were talking about the internal controls in preparation for last week with GLI. A lot of states have married sports wagering and racing and sort of the same umbrella and with the same entities. Massachusetts has not done that. We've had sports horse racing for so long. So this is really intended to be a clarifier that a sports book for instance, or a mobile app can't take over those functions. So just to be clear, if I went and I'll use a licensee that we gave permission to, let's say I wanted to go to Encore and place a bet on an MLB game, I can't at the same location put a bet on a horse race. This may be a question for others who know that the answer to this, you couldn't unless they already offer betting on horse races in under their existing gaming license or simulcast license. I'm not sure Todd, if Encore would have that. So I wish that under the gaming act, the category one licensee and maybe the category two could have offered simulcasting if they had requested it from the beginning, but nobody has requested to do that. So it's a separate body. It's a separate licensing schema. So basically what this is reiterating here is that this is not trying to overstep anything that's already provided by 128 regarding licensure of horse racing or simulcasting. If you do have an operator, we haven't seen it yet, but if you do have a single operator that does wish to offer horse race, like wagering on horse races, then they would need to get licensed under that schema, but we didn't want to imply that it's included under this direct schema. So I just wanna make sure the people of the Commonwealth understand that. Mike, can I just ask another clarifying question? So in another jurisdiction that may or may not be surrounding us, if I go to place a bet, a physical bet, not in a kiosk, on a sports bet, when I go down to that area, I am directed to go to right for a sports betting. I'm directed to go to left for horse racing. That's cause they probably have two different licenses. Is that an accurate statement? That would be accurate, or they might have a single person, but two separate systems. So they might log into one, they might log a sports betting ledger into one bucket and then log the horse race ledger into the other bucket. So there's a possibility at some point in the future that our category ones might come before us for a simulcasting of horse racing license. Is that an accurate statement? But they don't have that now. Okay. Can I pause on that? Would that require legislative change of council growth or is that a request where we would have authority to? They can come now. Yeah, I believe I'd have to, I can go back and look at chapter 23K, but I believe under chapter 23K, they could do that now. And they could have done that for the past number of years if they were interested in simulcasting horse race. So, but if you're asking whether the untethered or tethered category three licensees under the Sports Waging Act could do that, I'd have to double check to see whether you could allow it, but certainly the decision is being proposed here that it'd be kept separate. Yeah. Just want to make sure everybody's clear on that. Well, you know, it's really hard to PPC and what will be the cat choose this, we will have this situation then. Well, or could I ask the question in a different way, Commissioner O'Brien? Let's talk about PPC. Right. Cause that's clear to me. Currently, simulcast is allowed there at a particular area at the facility. If I, in my very simplest terms, if I want to place a bet pursuant to 23N on, let's say an MLB event, I do that on a kiosk or in person. If I want to place a bet related to racing, horse racing, right now I would not be able to do that at that same kiosk or in person. I would have to go and literally go to a different area at the facility and place that bet. That's right. The technology is often separate, almost always. Go ahead. Sorry. I'm sorry, because I can't tell who's speaking. So I just want to clarify something. One minute, Commissioner O'Brien, one minute. I think Mike spoke and I couldn't hear him. So if we could hear Mike, react. No, that was Joe. Well, that was, see, that's what I mean. I couldn't tell who was speaking. If I could hear from Joe, that would be great. Since the licensee structure has always been different almost throughout the whole country for paramutual horse racing systems, those that technology is separate from sportsbook systems that are being deployed now since the repeal of PASPA. So the answer to your question is yes. Two separate systems. And there's a problem. And I bet Commissioner O'Brien is anticipating the problem that I'm thinking of. Yeah, well, because while that's technologically accurate, there is a dichotomy in Massachusetts and that comes with the horse racing and particularly the live betting that you can put with the tellers at PPC. They're not going to put kiosks in that area, but you could in theory be going to the same teller even though you're going into two separate systems. And so that's the conundrum. And they're going to have to card there. And it's unclear whether they're going to offer sports wagering in that with the live tellers. I know they're not putting a kiosk in, but I don't think we've clarified whether they're going to let you do that at the teller. And to the core of the issue, because I'm wondering if this is another... 18 versus 21, right. 18 versus 21 in Massachusetts. So to your original question, Commissioner Hill, I thought that's what you were thinking about. Because in Massachusetts, you can't place a horse, you can place a horse racing at the age of 18. Madam Chair. And I just, oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Maynard. No, please. Commissioner Maynard, go right ahead. Commissioner Maynard. So I do understand that dichotomy. I also am thinking about the patron, especially around some of the larger events, like the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness and so forth and so on. I don't know. Is there any room in this construction that would allow us to allow for some sort of wagery? Commissioner Maynard, good morning, it's Gabe. And this may answer also Commissioner Hill's question too. I think what you guys are missing here is at a kiosk, you can wager if approved or allowed for a fixed odds bet on that horse race. So if there is a Kentucky Derby, you would have, let's say for example, the winner would be five to one odds. It would be different than your paramutual system if I'm not mistaken. The rules, so when we were drafting the rules with A and K, and this is definitely something we could change, we did put in a provision where in earlier drafts, there was a provision to kind of open it up for potential for fixed odds, horse race wagering. So two states right now have launched fixed odds, horse race wagering, Colorado and New Jersey. New Jersey has kind of roped it in with their existing racing commission and Colorado has more or less roped it in with their sports betting regulations. Now we've encountered this in multiple states where these conversations come up and it's a matter of, okay, if we were to allow fixed odds wagering, would it be under sports wagering or would it be left under horse race wagering? Would it be a modification to the paramutual statutes or would it be something covered under the sports wagering statutes? So with that said, based on some internal discussions, it was determined just to leave out horse race wagering completely right now. And if there was a time in the future that the commission wished to entertain fixed odds for horse race wagering, it would be up to the commission to make a decision whether to incorporate it under existing paramutual wagering is just another type of wagering on horse races or to consider it as a sporting event. And then therefore updating those rules. So with us in terms of money goes to different places depending on whether it's. And I am gonna ask for everyone to ask just a little pause for permission to speak because when we have an animated conversation like this, it gets hard to manage. Commissioner Hill, you asked. So let me just go back to a couple of things. If my memory serves me correctly when we were having the PPC discussion and I know Commissioner O'Brien, you had brought up the 18 verse 21 during that date and discussion. My understanding was they would not be allowed to be in the same place to place a bet. So you're not going to a cage and I'm able to place a bet on a sport and then go and place a bet on the horse. They're gonna be separated so that that won't happen. And I was comfortable with that because we all were concerned about that. So I don't see in this discussion where they're gonna be able to go to one cage. You go to one area in the gaming issue for the sports and then you have to go to another area in the casino for the horse race betting. I believe that's what we were told. They weren't gonna do kiosks freestanding. I don't remember them specifically saying that you weren't gonna be allowed to go to the teller in that 18 plus and also bet on sports wagering. You would be carded before you went into the casino part. Right, right. And I just insert, I don't believe we saw a plan for them to build a wager, any kind of thing. So I don't think that sports wagering in person is contemplated in that area. I think that the issue that commissioner Hill is saying is that the issue of age is mitigated because you'd only be 21 and older to place a sports bet. So really the only question is to commissioner Maynard's point is that it really is a matter of the operators making a request that they would have to make an affirmative request on horse racing to include it in there or would we include it on horse racing globally? Or do they need to make an individual request under the statutory structure? Commissioner. Can I just add one thing more, madam chair to that conversation? The way we tax horse racing and the way we tax sports betting are two very different things. Yep, and the money goes. So I think for me anyways to answer your question and keep it separated for now, keep the rules in place as they are today and then we can bring that back if it's even an issue. I may be making this bigger than it needs to be which I try not to do. Well, no, you know what commissioner Hill I was trying to be responsive to commissioner Maynard too because he was asking, is there some degree of flexibility to make it an offering particularly around the heavy traffic Kentucky Derby? We do have a little bit of time beforehand. I just want consumers in Massachusetts to understand that when they go to place a bet on a sports event they're not going to be able to place a bet in unless they come before us for a license. Right now, but this is our chance to change that. So that's the only, I hear you saying but I just want to make sure that we're hearing all the other commissioners. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. Madam chair. Yes. Am I being recognized? Yes, you are. Yes. Thank you, commissioner Maynard. And I hear Mike and you know, again, this is the product of our meeting law and sounds like there was a robust conversation. I would like to be included in this robust conversation in a public way at some point. None of us have heard it. Oh, I'm not applying that madam chair. I'm applying that. Yes. Someone from this team has heard it and the commissioners probably haven't. And so I would be interested in taking this up as a policy question in the future. Well, okay. So that last statement is important commissioner Maynard because I wondered if you wanted to have that policy discussion right here because commissioner Hill has made somewhat of a public announcement as to should we adopt this reg as written? It would be a hold unless we have that policy discussion now and I turn now to Nina. Let's get us here now. Thank you, madam chair. Just to be clear, I think you just made the clarification I was about to. I think this is what gave meant when you were saying this before gave that you would have to change the reg because right now it would be pregnant. That's the first point to commissioner Maynard's point and the other points made though. I would just, the part of the reason this was drafted this way and why we addressed it this way in the internal controls regs as well is that going back to before the enactment of the gaming act, there were very careful balances of existing horse racing licenses and the rights and responsibilities. If you look in the sports wagering act too, the term sports wagering and sports events would not necessarily exclude horse races. However, category two licenses are described with reference to their ability to offer simulcast wagering on horse or grayhound racing. So I would say that if you were to have that policy choice, I think it might require a bit of to get to your question way back at this point about whether any legislative change would be needed. Arguably not, but I think it would warrant further looking in given the different taxation methods, given the very again, very careful balancing of existing horse racing in the Commonwealth going from 2010 onward. And if we just supplement that, I agree with that entirely. There are two places in the existing laws not including chapter 23 and the talk about who is allowed to simulcast horse racing. And it's either an entity that's been licensed under chapter 128A or chapter 128C or a gaming establishment that it requests such authority under chapter 23K it's section 7B that talks about it. So while I agree completely with what Mina just said, you may be able to allow it under 23N, it may be that you would be infringing upon those other authorities if you were to allow the broadcast of simulcasting under chapter 23N, even though it's not specifically addressed that one. So I think that's part of the reason at least the way the draft before you was written the way it was to kind of protect all of those interests, but it is open to discussion with those parameters in mind. Madam Chair, the reason I would be hesitant to take this debate up today is that we would not have an opportunity to hear from other folks on this. And I don't think that would be a fair thing to do at this point. But certainly something I want to have a discussion on at some point. I agree. And I would say that I don't want to hold up this rig at all, but I am interested if there are any category ones who would like to run a Derby event in May, it's something that I would want to hear about through public comment. So I'm interested in taking it up on a future date. Excellent. Well, I would say if we're going to do that, we'd also want to hear from the people that do have the right and what potential impact it would have on them because the funding does go to the horse racing and breeding in Massachusetts. So there's a, there's another layer to that analysis. And at present no one has asked in Cavillum and that's been present even before the sportsway during. So. I agree Commissioner O'Brien and I also would be interested in this fixed versus the rules around ensemble casting currently. And so I'm interested in that too. That said, it's just hard for me to set myself in a sports book and not see that I can place a wager at the Kentucky Derby. And so that's where I'm coming from. From my perspective. Commissioner Skinner, are you all set? Just so you know, real quick, sorry. So what we have seen in other states is we've seen and more so this would probably be more one directional considering the different age ranges, but for instance, in New Jersey, in the sports books you'll have paramutual kiosks. So there are cases where there is that crossover where you'll have paramutual kiosks next to sports wager and kiosks in a sports book. Granted, for the purposes of Massachusetts because you have two different age ranges you might have, for instance, in your casino area which is restricted to 21 and up would be you'd have paramutual kiosks along with sports wager and kiosks, theoretically speaking. Thank you, Mike. I believe, Kevin, you just came on. Was that purposeful to add in at this point? Are you all set? Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. Yeah, I actually just got on. I'm sorry, I've been on the phone. What was the question? It's okay, we don't need to rehash. I just wanted to see if you were adding in. Commissioner Skater, did you want to add in? Nothing else to add, it's already been said. There have been some good questions and considerations raised. But I do think that as Commissioner Hill and others have said, further discussion is necessary to understand the implications of what it is we're proposing. However, I will say that as I read the regulation I did understand the intent of it. Excellent. So the reg as stated is clear, and I think Commissioner Hill has stated it to the public. Should this, as is right now, if we were to adopt it as is, you've made that clear. Any other questions on this topic? Karen, if we could put that in our notes to figure out when we revisit this topic for further exploration from stakeholders, particularly Cat Ones and those that hold the simulcast licenses now. And I suspect the horse racing community. All right, thank you. And of course, some of those statutes are not as new as the one we're looking at. So that raises another set of complexities. So we turn to the A&K and our legal experts on all that's going through 128, we can see. So thank you. All right, then move on, Ms. Scherz, okay. All right, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll pick it back up at 247.02. This is the provision. I think I mentioned this last week that this would be coming up in response to a question regarding house wagering rules and patron access. Chapter 23N, section 10A, requires the adoption of house rules. This has come up in a few different other regs, obviously the internal controls. This is where the contents of house rules or the basic essentially table of contents of house rules comes up. You'll see in section one requires the adoption, section two requires public availability of the house rules, which are of course going to have to be approved by the commission. And then the section three has the 20 or so categories of things that go into house rules. Types of wagers, method of calculating wage, I won't go through all of them, but essentially explaining what it is that will govern particular wagering for that entity. It has to be consistent with all the other rules, but it is a sort of the house set. That's such a very important piece. I'm not sure if there's any questions about that. The key point, and I'll emphasize it again on page 33, is that not only does the commission adopt these, it can't be changed without commission approval. So this is a key portion that consulate by the legislator and that is within your control. 247.03, if I could go on, take a quick question. I just interject a question that I think I know the answer to, but I wanna be respectful of Commissioner O'Brien's increase. And I know even the commission has work to do on this, but currently the house rule languages, the house rules and our expectation is only in English. That's what traditionally is done across jurisdictions. This does not address language, but my understanding is that has been the case. And I'm not sure if there are other jurisdictions, I don't believe that, I'm not aware of it. I don't know if anyone in the GLI team or the jurisdictions that have required translation. It's really a business decision. So say you have a sports book in a neighborhood which has a large predominance of Spanish speaking folk, they might have the house rules in both Spanish and English, but it's not really something that's like left to the regulation itself in any other US markets. So that might be something when we turn about responsible gaming that we might wanna think about here, because to me Spanish and potentially Mandarin or something might be something that we might wanna ask our licensees to have translations of. I'll just add that I raised this, maybe it does, maybe it could be aspirational and we could continue to monitor the development of that because we are quite intentional around issues around diversity and equity and inclusion. And so I think it's consistent with our internal policies. We need to continue to work on that even on our own communications. So perhaps we just are noting right now that it's aspirational and we work toward that over the course of the year with all of our existing licensees and new licensees to come. I wanna be sensitive around language. I know that Game Sense has worked on that to a certain degree. Is that fair commissioners rather than necessarily requiring it in a reg today because it might be from a business perspective unexpectedly taxing and we also wouldn't want it to be hurried. Let that be, we make that as an aspirational goal. So we might, and these are coming at us fast and furious but I don't think we've totally finished our responsible gaming right, sadly. Harry, correct me if I'm wrong. I think that there may be at least one more coming. Right, so I don't think today is the venue but it could be something whether it's aspirational or something stronger than that. I think there is not an opportunity before we launched to do that. So this I'm talking about house rules but I was being respectful of your inquiry around responsible gaming, house rules and even all of our rules, we are moving toward that and I think it's an important, a really important movement. I just wanna be aware of the business considerations on balance and it's a long-term goal. I just see Director Vanillen and you're weighing in on what I understand of the company responsible gaming and I don't wanna distract them too much on what's in front of us but please add in. Yeah, now my ears always perk up when I hear responsible gaming, so good morning. Yeah, I would say it's very consistent whether it's any of our research deliverables or game sense materials or attention to game sense capabilities within the game sense team. It hasn't been a heavy lift to make sure that we get materials translated and moved over and to the extent that the commission would like, I'd be happy to help with that with the translation resources that we have. Right, thank you. All right, so I raise it. I don't feel right now it needs to be an affirmatively included in our regulation. I think that we work with our licensees, Karen, toward this goal. It's consistent with our policy that we adopted unanimously our statement of purpose, right? Karen, I don't mean to put you on the spot but you can just include that too for the operators. Yeah. Okay. I'm not sure I could point out that your normal regulatory powers are still in play here and the house rules like the house rules on the casino side have to be approved by the commission. So frankly, in my view, if you tell them to do this, they're going to do it and are obligated to do it but it is not a common requirement. We want to leave it right now unspoken or do we want to include by a certain year or timeframe or do we want to hold and get more information as to which language is et cetera down the road and we can amend? I asked, I'm appreciating turning Molly's point. Okay, Mina. Madam Chair, one suggestion on this and I apologize, I hope I didn't overtake somebody else speaking. So these are likely, I think the recommendation is going to likely be for emergency regs for these. So again, that comes back in 90 days. I have two suggestions kind of echoing what Kevin just said. One is you could revisit this in a permanent reg and whether to phase it in or not. I would also say this may be an appropriate ask as you mentioned of individual operators as they're going through licensure and if they're willing to commit to it could be a license condition for operators that want to accept it to make sure that they actually do it. There are some. We've already given a few without that condition so that will weigh in on equity. And I see Commissioner Maynard nodding his head I'm going to turn now to John Renevich. Gianni, please. Yeah, just want to reiterate somewhat of Mina just said that a translation ask before launch would be quite demanding on the operations and the most don't have stipulations in place. So they would need some time and it would be a bit of a lift to implement. So I just did a quick check and asked some people and they wouldn't have it quite ready. So just something to note. Thank you. This is one area where I don't think Massachusetts mine's leading the conversation. Commissioner Maynard. We require they would move quickly enough to do it if they had to. Okay, so for today, Commissioner O'Brien, are you leaving in? No. Oh, okay. Commissioner Hill. I think for today, once again, very well written before us and something we put on our list of things to do. Commissioner Maynard. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Maynard. I at this point hearing what Evan just said and hearing your feedback, I don't care, I would say that we should leave it aspirational but swift. So maybe set a timeframe. Do we do that in the regular as we move along? I would say as we move along. Okay. Thank you for clarification. Commissioner Skinner, your thoughts. Oh, it's the wrong button. I'm good with as we move along. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. I think as we bring back the last RG red, we look at it in terms of do we wanna put anything in there? And I think we specifically talk to the retail licensees we have who are gonna be launching first in terms of how much of a lift would it be? I'd like that information to help me decide whether it's a do now or move along. That's fair. So we could think about it as the notion of a condition on licenses going forward and see if the others would agree. Is that what you're suggesting? Right. Otherwise, I think I'm hearing the consensus is as we move along, I suppose that's consistent. It just may be that Commissioner O'Brien might wanna visit it a little bit earlier. Commissioners, if we could leave it at that and see if it makes sense even in this early stage or whether we wanna hold off and make it more aspirational. But I guess that if it's okay, we'll reserve the right for Commissioner O'Brien to revisit if she would like earlier. Does that make sense? Yep. Okay, let's keep that in our mind. It's consistent with our statement of purpose. You know, we're mean to thank you for your patience, but we're doing some work on our own side of the, this is really a critical piece of our commitment to inclusion and equity. So it's a good conversation for us to insert. Thank you. No problem at all, Madam Chair. And so that's certainly understand that. Going on onward to 247.03, this was sort of alluded to earlier. This is a petition for a sporting event or wager category where it's any person, importantly, not just an operator, could ask for approval of new sporting events or wager categories. And this describes what they have to show you in order to be able to do that, including in detail the rules that would go around it. Of course, they can't conflict with what the prohibited event. So this gets back to, you know, for instance, on the horse wagering question before, you wouldn't be able to ask for that at the moment because the reg says you can't, but for non-prohibited events or categories of wagering. The, if you go down to page 344 this lays out what the commission should consider when it gets such a request. So one is that the outcome is not determined solely by chance, that it can be verified, that there's sufficient integrity controls, the outcome is not affected by the wagers themselves. I think that's a sort of common idea and all of these bets. And that the event is conducted in accordance with all equitable laws. So the event itself is not illegal. So that sort of gives you a framework to work with a very broad one in case you get such a request. Again, there's quite a bit of process laid out here on how you do it, but effectively it puts into operators or others hands ability to request and in your hands and with input from the bureau and whatever consultants or expertise who might need the ability to review and decide on that. I have a question, Madam Chair. Yes. On 4A, Mina, is that, is that written into the statute? Could you say the number again, please, Michelle? Under 247.03, if you've go to subsection 4A, which is on page 34 solely by chance, just the language I'm talking about and there's a reason I'm asking. Let's take an event and I've been to three of them this year, such as World Wrestling Entertainment, where somebody knows the way the outcome will go, but I didn't know. And it was very clear to me that there are states that are allowing sports wagering on some of the straddles to line, right, between entertainment and sports. Would that be something that we could consider or not consider an event like WrestleMania? Commissioner Maynard, I don't believe the words only by chance are in the statute. I'd want to confirm that, but it's not in the definition of sports wager itself. To take your example just slightly differently because I think in that case, whether or not that's by chance would be a separate question, but to take a more obvious one, wagering on the outcome of the coin toss, let's say. Excuse me, an opening coin toss of the football game, that is it going to be heads or tails, just to use that or will the Red Sox where they're home whites or the city addition yellows today, that's purely by chance. That would be what would be prohibited by this. I think the example you provided would be a closer question. And I don't see it in the statutes, I do think it is a policy choice. I think the idea of it is to distinguish it from sports wagering, which is defined with, at least by implication, there is a, I'm just looking at the exact language I was looking for, it's sort of the performance of athletes or the outcome of athletic competition. So that does beg the question for something like world wrestling where maybe it's a predetermined outcome but the public doesn't know it, but it certainly would be a stretch to apply that to a completely arbitrary thing like a Contos. How about the Oscars, that comes up? Well, sports wagering is defined in the statutes, I'll just say this as sporting events, other events, right? The individual performs, yeah. So I think you could conceivably get a request for betting on the Oscars or other award shows and then you would have that issue and then you would have to decide whether those other categories are met. I think the sort of, there would be a lot of sort of questions of best practices in the industry at that point and what to do, so maybe not legal questions, but I think you could fit that into other events in the statute, I should say, but it would be perhaps once you might get as a special request. Could I just walk you through, because it's the double negatives that I'm confused by, so the commission would not grant the petition to authorize and let's assume a non-traditional sporting eventing like the Oscars is included, unless the following minimum criteria that the outcome is not determined solely by chance. Right. What would work, right? Right, right, and that's why I was pausing on commissioner Maynard's example as well, because I would say that's not really determined by chance either, there's sort of a human element of somebody has to do something and it's not completely by chance, so you would have to decide whether that would fit in. Madam chair, my understanding is at least in jurisdictions where they allow world wrestling entertainment, it's capped, right? There's a cap on the wager that can be placed and the odds are very, are weighted to keep any real funny business from going on. And that's kind of what I'm sitting here thinking is that if we pass this as is, I would have a hard time seeing the WWE filling in. I'd probably want the WWE, right? I'm just throwing it out there. One commissioner I would want them to be able to be eligible. So at least to come to us and ask, right? And for us to consider it, right? So that's why I'm bringing it up. Madam chair, if I could just on that example, because I think it's a useful one to highlight some of the other features of what else you'd be considering. Thank you. So on that potential one, one of the things that would actually, I think would raise good questions of is there going to be any suggestion or is there what are the controls in place to make sure that if WWE sees the line changing because of the number of bets placed in Massachusetts or elsewhere on it, they might not change the outcome, right? And so that gets into number, into a letter D. It's not likely to be affected by the outcome of the wage or so you'd start thinking about sort of these other issues. And I'm not to say you wouldn't say yes to it, but that's the kind of questions you'd have. And that's what we're just, you know, as you get to each one, same with something like the Oscars, et cetera, would you allow it for instance, you know, at any time or would it be in the lead-up after you know, the envelopes are it, right? And sort of those kinds of things. So to commissioner Maynard's important example, are you saying, you know, that as we approve each event, we would then be able to put the guardrails up then? You'd be able to put up the guardrails then or ask the questions to see if the guardrails are there. Right, you know, certainly the coin flip example that I gave you, there's no guardrail in the world. You could make that unless you rig it, which you don't want to do. So it would still be solely by chance. So, but you'd want to see if the guardrails are there. And that's to get back to the double negative point. That's the idea is unless these criteria are met, you're sort of sending the message, don't ask us about events that don't meet these criteria. And that's the showing you're going to expect to be made to you before you could say yes. Questions on this framework, because that's really what I'm hearing. It's again, the framework where the details would follow with a particular request that doesn't make our first set of approvals. Commissioner Maynard, are you satisfied right now? I still don't know if we have the flexibility to grant that event or not given this framework, but it's a wreck. Did I hear though from your example that it's not clear that it's that it's determined by chance in your? So we are nearing the holidays. And so, you know, a lot of people don't want to hear about Santa Claus and the veracity. And some people don't want to hear about WWE and the veracity of that. But the, you know, there's an entertainment value to it. I would say it's different than the Oscars. And there is a physical action going on, which sometimes that happens with the Oscars. But I would want the framework to be able to make this decision. That's what I'm saying, is that if it came before us, I would want to be able to make this decision. And I'm worried that that line narrows unless someone tells the different one, but... I guess I asked a question. We don't need to believe it, but I understand there are the envelopes for the Oscars. I wondered if there was some kind of a foot, because I don't know enough about that business, if there's something arranged in advance. That's all. Madam Chair. In writing, I don't know the business well enough, so we don't need to belabor it. But I think Commissioner Maynard, you understand what I might be saying. It's like scripted and unscripted TV, right? Yes, Mina. Yeah, so just to answer Commissioner Maynard's point on that question, because I was trying to draw the example that would be by chance. The way I read this language is that kind of, it's predetermined is not the same as solely by chance. I would say that you would have the authority to at least consider it, provided all these other provisions are also met. The solely by chance is really intended to distinguish sports wagering from gaming. The most obvious example I can think of, and not table games obviously, which involves some skill, but roulette, that's solely by where the ball lands. That's not the same as by chance, because I think if you take solely by chance is really that there's no human control element of it at all, including predetermined, and so take the Oscars example, where they are the same as, certainly somebody knows and somebody makes a selection and can guess on it. So it's the idea that it's a public wager on what the outcome will be. We just to help maybe move this along, what if we instead of saying that the commission shall not grant any such petition, what if we just said the commission shall consider each of the following criteria in determining whether to allow a petition? Yeah, I think Mina wanted to make sure that we didn't get a whole bunch of petitions that just didn't meet the criteria. So I think that if I understood the not, because I did wonder about the double negative, I appreciated your explanation, Mina. So commissioners, I don't know if we're necessarily displeased with the language or field boxing, given the explanations, Jordan, are you getting more comfortable, Commissioner Maynard? Or do we need a trauma and a clause after? Well, I thought we could also do it. Other jurisdictions have figured this out. During the round table, we heard about the great RG work that was being done in this particular industry. It does straddle the line, as Mina said. Probably the perfect example of where this issue would pop up. I'm fine moving forward for the purposes of today, but if it comes before us, then I'm gonna take a very liberal reading of that language if we're not gonna allow a change. But maybe the best thing too is for us to keep on moving along and then something may come up in our minds as we move along, because our brains sometimes have that capacity to come up with the idea as we move along. So, if we could just pin it for right now, Commissioner Maynard, and to make sure you're comfortable. You've raised a very good point, and it's just subtle enough that I think our minds are all thinking about it. All right, so let's continue and keep on putting that one in them at the end. We'll come back to floor A. Sure, Madam Chair, so that 247.04 sort of the flip side of this. Adam, Sam? Yeah. Yes, come in. I'm so sorry. Okay, I have a question about 03, 247.03. 3G, I'm just looking for confirmation that when it says sports governing body authorized by the commission, that that is pursuance of this reg. Is that right? So it talks about 247.05, talks about the notification from the sports governing body when it, as it relates to the official data. If I understand your question correctly, Commissioner Skinner, I think the answer is yes. So it's a sports governing body that meets a statutory definition and regulatory requirements of what you would consider one. Yes, but the authorization contemplated by this section is what you've outlined in 247.05.04. Is that right? So the language in 3G, it says the name of any sports governing body or equivalent organization as authorized by the commission. Yes, yes. So talk about the commission's authorization. You're referring to 247.05.04, right? That process played out there. Thank you. Is that confirmation because it wasn't apparently clear as I read through this the first time? Thank you. And my apologies for moving forward. I might have missed Commissioner Skinner. Anyone else have any other questions? Commissioner Maynard raised one and now a clarifier for Commissioner Skinner. Anything else before Nina moves on? Attorney Macarius. Thank you. 04, as I was starting to say, is the flip side of 03. This is prohibiting wagers for good cause. This, in this case, the request would come form a sports governing body as a defined term or equivalent organization or a player's association to limit or exclude certain types of bets. That notwithstanding that they might otherwise be allowed under the statute that they would ask you to limit them. Again, it sets out the criteria for why you might accept that. For instance, it affects the integrity, et cetera. The request has to be submitted to you. You go through a process to either grant or deny the request and again, sort of procedural rules set out in 247.04 to do that. So this is a sort of guardrail for that purpose. Any questions on that? Otherwise, I can move on. Commissioner Hill. Yeah, sorry, I was trying to hit my button. We obviously are gonna be having a conversation with the player's association coming up soon. But one of the concerns that they had when we were given a letter by them early in the process had to do with family protection as well. And I was wondering if there's any language that we could put in there. Protecting, you know, if they come before us to show that their families could be heard by a vet taking place. So to answer that question, at the moment, Commissioner Hill, you would have, as written, you would have some broad discretion under this language at the top of page 35, excuse me. You'll see that the commission's powers in response to that request is to restrict, limit or exclude. So depending on what the nature of the request is, if they say, you know, this bet is okay, but if you could do X, Y, Z, it would protect us from, you know, whatever that issue might be or then that's certainly something you could do. And because that'd be a very good argument for its contrary to public policy or the integrity of it. So that's something you could consider. I would also, you know, just point back to some of, I apologize because I don't know the particular issue that was raised, but I can think of some of the issues. Some of the types of prohibited bets are categorically, you can't bet on sort of the misfortune of an athlete or somebody else, right? So one of the ways to protect against that is we're not asking, you know, if so-and-so gets injured during the game, somebody wins money, that would be prohibited in the first instance. Thank you, Madam Chair. Are you comfortable with that? Yes. We reserve the right to amend for particulars if particulars arise out of our round table discussion. Yeah. But I do think that the discretion is broad enough that we could also, I'm- Yeah. Okay. Excellent. Thank you, Mina. Thank you. 247.05, then as a data sources and official leak data, this is a contemplating the statute and sort of the gets into the mechanics of how, what information gets fed into sports wagers, you know, what you're relying on, that someone bat 299 or 300. I'm not sure you can wager on that, I don't want to misspeak, but, you know, who decides that comes from official leak data with something a hit or an error. So this sort of lays out the process for what kind of data may be used, the operators have to use reliable data from appropriate sources from leak data, et cetera. The section four, which Commissioner Skinner, this is on page 36 now, that Commissioner Skinner alluded to earlier, allows a sports governing body to notify the commission that it desires use of a particular set of official data, so it gets controlled to the governing body to do that. The number five is obviously the sort of a belt and suspender approach that if there isn't tier two wagers, you know, about individual player performance, allowed for a particular sport, leak data isn't going to be flowing out there, suggesting that it can be bet on. Again, it sets a process for how you evaluate these requests to use particular leak data or not. The kind of the rest of this, it's a fairly long rag because as you can imagine this, these issues could get complicated, but the section eight on page 37 is again, the commission's sort of criteria that you'd be asked to look at, the availability of the data, the, you know, how available it is to the operators and to the public, the characteristics, the quality of it, you know, is it something that rises the level of someone should wager on or is it my attempts to keep track of goals if I could soccer game, not good. So, you know, that kind of a factor. And there's a catch all that the commission has a pretty broad discretion to consider any factors there. So again, this is the, that sort of takes us through 247.05, can move on to 06, unless there are particular questions on 05. It's a possibility for that. Okay. So 06 gets into tournaments, contests and pools, which again, as a request of the commission for approval and the description of the event, including what's going to be wagered on, the rules for it, you know, to the extent there is a pool, how the sort of allocation, sort of information about patrons, that would be involved, entry fees, et cetera. There is information here about the rake and the sort of fees collected as well that has to be provided. We are proposing, this is not in the packet that you have before you, but based on the question I believe came up through the licensing process, the licensing hearings, there was a reference in the statute, it's actually in the section regarding the control fund to breaks, which are a category of payouts of wagers really, where a amount may be sort of split because you have multiple winners or a pool entry and that there needs to be a reference to, that there may be a payment out where you need to do some rounding up or down. I would just ask, I think Joe was going to be the GLI representative to speak to this, Joe, if you're available, but we would propose adding, at the very end of 247.066, a very simple provision, which I'll let Joe sort of explain the purpose and then I can, and then we can sort of read it through, but to account for, to basically ask someone who is trying to get approval of an event that includes breaks, to also explain how the breaks will be calculated so that you can account for it. So first I think it's actually fundamental to understand breaks and the term is used, particularly in paramutual wagering and it's the quote, odd sense that come up. Simply you've got $100 pool, you've got three people, you've got a lingering decimal and how that is financially tracked. So in sports fitting pools, this also could happen as you would imagine if the three of us are in a pool for a NFL playoff contest and there's some sort of tie, this three winners, there's gonna be an odd sense scenario. So this is referred to as a break and I have Steve May here, who has much more experience in the paramutual end to where this is called for. And I'll also know and Todd, I have to bail me out here, where exactly it is, but breaks are defined in the Massachusetts statute. So it's been suggested to add a simple clause to refer to that point. Councilor Grossman. I would just add, we should definitely allow Mr. May to address this issue. He can probably explain it better than anyone else. I would just note to Jones point though that breaks are defined in chapter 23 and specifically as the odd sense over any multiple of 10 cents of winnings per $1 wagered. So it may be helpful to ask Mr. May to just step in and offer more of an explanation as to what breaks are. And then as Meena mentioned, just to add some language into this section, just noting exactly how we'll handle the breaks. So Steve, if you want to jump in. No problem. Thank you. I appreciate your time on this. Really what this is, most of what Joe said was really, is really spot on on this topic. When you do primarily a paramutial calculation and you have variable wager amounts and you can wager $2 on a win wager, you can wager $50 on a win wager, you can wager all sorts of different ways, but there's a point in the calculation where that you need to figure out what the profit per dollar wagered is and the profit per dollar is used so that you can eventually multiply that times whatever that wager amount was. So that you get it down to that price per dollar and then you multiply that up times a $50 wager or a $2 wager. It's usually displayed in a $2 wager on a win board. But as Joe was saying, you almost always have a situation where there's, when you do the division of that, the winning dollars divided by however many winning wagers there were, you almost always have a situation where it's $32 and 23.212 cents. Well, you've got to figure out what to do with that .212 cents. And so you don't round that up, you always round that down, which means you're taking a small amount of the winnings that would go back to the players. You're taking that out and then you figure out what to do with that. So that's really where the breakage comes in and that's handled various things, handled that in various ways on that. And so anytime you, if you have just a flat wager amount, if you're offering odds of seven to one, for instance, or you're wagering a plus 125 on a sports wager, that's gonna be a fixed amount that's going back. So you're not gonna have breakage in those situations, but anytime you have any kind of cooled wagers, you're almost always gonna have breakage in those situations. Now, that's not to say that you round down every wage or anything anytime that there's not a whole, anytime that there's, I'm trying to say, it's anytime that you have a, if you have a $32 and 23 cent payout, then if that's what the odds happen to be, then that's what they would pay out if there's no breakage in that situation. It's really just gonna get coming to play when you have those cooled wagers in there. But I think the proposal to just refer back to that, it makes sense on that and let the operators figure out how they wanna handle that. Before we leave, Steve, questions for Mr. May. Commissioner O'Brien. I do, can you just, when you say you always round down, is that an accounting principle? Is that just industry practice at today? Where does that assertion come from? The, I predict the question on that. The, you round down on that because otherwise you are, the operator is having to put money into the pool on that. So that's the principle is you always would round down in that situation so that there is money that can, otherwise you're having to contribute money from the house and then you start wagering against the house in a situation. Right, so I guess I mean, I'm gonna need to understand to, I get that that's why they do that, but sometimes I wonder if asking somebody to put in a partial cent is the cost of doing business. Well, that partial cent becomes, it can become a lot of money over time. I'm sure, yeah. And it's important to note, I think, just to, Steve kind of touched on this, the breaks go into by statute here into the sports wager and control fund. So they go to the state. It's not that they go back into the operator's pocket. And then where do they go from there? That's not like 23K, right? Where there's more specifics about where it goes. I don't know if Derek is there to... That's a conversation with another name. Chief Financial Officer Lennon just joined in. So you heard the question, Derek. Yes. So the gaming control fund funds our operations. So it would just reduce the assessment on each licensee. So as the breaks come in, it would reduce what were the licensees paid towards our operations? So they're essentially paying. They're just paying through the route of reducing the cash they have to pay to us as opposed to something else. Correct. If it's not going for the benefit of a commonwealth in any way, it's getting, except to the extent we use it, we use it down, right? But then we just don't assess them large amount. So that is different than under 23K, correct? Well, the way it's written. So there are no breaks under 23K because you just get paid out. But it is different in that money coming from the patrons that would have been attacks is going to fund our operations directly versus coming out of the operator's pockets which are funded through the bets anyways. But it is a technicality, but you are correct. Those patron wagers are coming to us. Commissioner, follow-up questions for Mr. May. I know we haven't resolved anything, but I just wanted to see what other, have other commissioners weigh in on this. It's that at overage. We go back to our elementary math class. And in this case, you always round down to the favor of the operator. And it sounds like the industry standard. Any questions? Okay. So can I ask this question, Mr. May? Has any jurisdiction challenged that in its regulation or have any other approach that we should know about? Madam chair, the only, the biggest change in this recently has actually been in Kentucky where on the paramutual wagering side that the state passed a new law in the legislative session last year, or earlier this year, I'm sorry, that reduced that breakage from either a nickel or a dime where you round it down to the nearest nickel in very, very small amounts, or generally round it out of the nearest dime. They've actually reduced that down to the nearest penny. So it did change that. And it's resulted in a lot more money going back to the players on that. But otherwise, no, this really has not been a topic that I've heard debated in any amount, any state. So they did reverse that, the rounding down all to the favor of the- Well, I wouldn't say they reversed it, they reduced it from, if it was, if the breakage amount was, if the wager was $43.7.24, so just to throw an arbitrary number in there, normally you would round that down to $43 and then the nearest dime on that situation. So you'd have seven cents of breakage, 7.212 cents of breakage in that situation. They've reduced that down to say just reduce it down to the nearest penny. So instead of going the whole seven cents, they just, they would reduce it down to the seven instead of the nearest dime on that situation. Okay, I have, I can't tell Attorney Grossman if you're leaning in and I know that still you're looking to be heard, I think. If I could, Madam Chair. Thank you. We're speaking of breakage, which is a paramutual phenomenon. So sports wagering is very rare that you will even have this. So I just want you all to understand that when we're speaking of breakage, I know the statute spoke of it, but I am unsure if we are going to have any at all. So with sports wagering, you have fixed amounts of odds and that the wagering is paid to the penny by the operators. So I know North presented that they're paying to the penny. So breakage is going to be a rarity in these situations, but is it there in case there is? Yeah, and this particular suggestion is brought up under the sports wagering pools section. I mean, it can bring that exactly where. Correct, yes. Correct, that's why it's in this section. This would be like a March Madness Tournament or a NFL Playoff or NBA Playoff Finals Tournament where you have multiple sports beds betting into one pool. So there's one pool of money. There's a path that could be a scenario where it does not divide out perfectly, therefore creating oddsense, therefore creating breakage. Madam Chair, if I... Yeah, so that's where we're gonna see it more in sports wagering would be with those pools, correct Nina? All right, and yes, go right ahead, Nina. Yeah, correct, and I saw Steve's hand up, so I don't wanna, Steve, I don't know if you had anything to add to that, but I just wanna just explain for the purposes of today and what we're asking for today, again, remember that tournaments and pools would come before you. So the fairness of breaks, whether it's appropriate to have it in those contexts or to have that kind of betting in the first place would depend on that review of the event. So that's not necessarily a foregone conclusion. The very simple addition we're proposing here, now that this issue was flagged, was to simply add at the end, a new section six that reads as very simple, all breaks from each prize pool must be transferred to the sports wager control fund in accordance with MGL chapter 23N section 15A. So we're not looking here to regulate breaks or exactly what happens one way or another, just simply mirroring the statue so that it's clear where the breaks go. I would suggest also reiterating this concept when we get, which we plan to in January, to some of the finance regs about where money goes that this also be captured in there. Commissioner, so it sounds as though it would be on the end of where it goes as opposed to defining the amount that we would take the industry standard. Is that fair? Correct, presumably you would, but again, you'd have an individual proposal in front of you. And so you'd have a chance to reassess a debt as well. Commissioner Maynard? So we would make the determination later. And it sounds like what I'm hearing from Mr. May is that there's the standard and there's this, we call it the Kentucky model. It's kind of new. That gives more money back to the patrons when a break occurs, is that correct? Correct, it moves the decimal. All right, I've got it. So, but we do need, you are recommending a change from what's in front of us right now in addition, Mina. Okay. Yeah, correct. Again, if I, you know, I screwed a little bit. So I've lost my... No, it's all right. At the very end of 247.076. On which page? Yep, I'll just get it. Yeah, page 39. So we're halfway through. So after five, does it become a new section, subsection six or does it... It does. If I may... Oh, sorry, Mina. I was just gonna, I think say what you were gonna say. I can pull it up and show you what that would look like if that's helpful. Yeah, that'd be great, Carrie. I have it on just six on a Word document. So if you have it built into the right, that's even better. Perfect, yeah. And breaks as defined in the statute is sufficient. There doesn't need to be any further clarification based on Mr. May's description, right? Correct, it's a defined term in the statute. The only change I would have from what's in front of you is that breaks would be capitalized because we've been capitalizing. Yeah, it's a defined term. So we'll capitalize that. Okay, commissioners, I think we've got that, Carrie. I bet we can take it down now. Thank you. Commissioners, any thoughts? Are we okay with that at this point? All right, I see affirmative. Commissioners, Skinner, yes. Okay, commissioner Maynard. Okay, and commissioner Hill's giving a thumbs up. Okay, let's move on then. Thank you. Important discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I want to say that we have had discussions around these types of issues with patrons and every penny matters, right? So we're thinking that way. Okay, go right ahead. 247.07, so now you've gotten through the parts of the rule, and if you sort of think of this sequentially, you've explained what you can't bet on. You've explained how you're going to authorize categories of bets. You explained how you're gonna authorize particular types of events, et cetera. Now it turns into how the operator, and this starts on halfway through page 39, accepts sports wagers. First kind of principle, available sports wagers have to be displayed to the public, including odds and a brief description of the sporting event and the proposition. Essentially, what is it that one could wager on? The two essentially reiterates that rule. If it's not posted, you can't accept it. The operator may not set lines of odds that purpose of ensuring a parent will win or et cetera. So it's sort of, they have to be meaningful. That's four, I think is worth pausing on. I know this has been an issue for discussion with the commission and in other contexts, is where sports wagers may be placed from. Certainly, first of all, sports wagering counter or other counter locations within a sports wagering facility which you remember is a sort of standalone or sports wagering area, which is a term we've used for sports wagering counters within or sports wagering facilities within a gaming area. B is I think the key one that has been a subject discussion, a sports wagering kiosk has drafted. It's a proposes a sports wagering kiosk that is either within a facility or sports wagering area, which would then mean that within for gaming establishments would also be within the gaming area. And in a location approved by the commission, this then gets captured again, as I mentioned last week in the floor plans in 138 for physical, if you know, for where kiosks would be. So that's probably the key one in here. And then again, with a designated counter and a cashier's wage cage and then mobile application or digital platform. We may as we bring back the 202, the definition series define these further mobile application or platform, but essentially that's all of your online gaming, whether it's from a mobile app or a website, you know, on a desktop, but then we can get to nuances of that at that point. Before I move on to how wageers, I know we're kind of breaking into the middle of this, but this is a, yeah. For the record, just to clarify too, because we talked about this a lot when we weren't sure whether PPC was gonna be putting kiosks in that area with the topotomy and it will probably come up with the tattoos. So my understanding of that and in a location approved by the commission is it would give us the further approval authority in terms of making sure we think whatever the safeguards need to be are adequately addressed. Like, you know, do you need to have somebody parting into that particular area? Is it cordoned off within a broader area than a lobby, that sort of thing. And I was satisfied with that language, but I just wanna make sure that the other commissioners, if they have any thoughts on it or want anything else. That's a correct reading of it, Commissioner O'Brien. Excellent. Sorry. Commissioner Skinner, sorry. Yes. You have a question asking what paragraph are you referring to, Commissioner O'Brien? It is when you go into sub four, it is B, paragraph B. On page... On page 39. So 247.074B. It's the and and a location approved by the commission. That's in there to make sure that we're satisfied with any precautions we want taken if it's in an area that might have people under 21. I'll set, Commissioner Skinner. I'll set. I'm comfortable with that language. Okay, thank you. All right. If I may go on then section five or subsection five, excuse me, it gets into the how a sports wagering may be conducted and this really gets into the how it's paid for. It can be conducted with chips, tokens, electronic cards or and then you have this sort of list of items, cash for currency, cryptocurrency, electronic funds, transfers, debit, including debit cards. Very important is when you get to seven. It prohibits the use of credit cards and placing sports ragers. I believe when we get to 248 later today, we'll also, there'll be further detail on this. There's language to make it clear that when we say no credit cards in these regs, it also means directly or indirectly through credit cards because I think that was a question that came up with respect to the way I'm thinking about it and maybe other examples is if I fund my Venmo account with my credit card and then use my Venmo account to pay, that's still prohibited to the extent the operator has the ability to stop that. So that's... During the carials because we spent a good deal of time, do you want to cross-reference to that? To create a same language. Do we need, do we do the same language or indirectly that we put in the other one or no? We certainly can, because I think we were focused on it at that point while we were drafting for Brian, but we can start... Because when we added it, we were only looking at the other one, so. Sure. I think if you could, when we vote, we can certainly keep that open. And I can just remembering the language and again, we're going to get to it shortly. It should fit here. Well, or cross-reference to the section one way or another. Right. Subsection eight has to do with the information that is required to register for sports wagering account. Again, this one is cross-reference to 248.03. And this is making sure that folks who are placing sports wagers are properly identified. The rest of these get into, again, this is as we've gone through this process over the last several months, you're probably starting to see rags that get back into making sure things you've already said. So sort of like I said last week, there are sort of double and triple layers of protection, regulatory protection. So that is essentially, that's really it for 07. Any further questions on that one? I have a question, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Yes. Nina, subsection nine, the second sentence. It says, neither the patron nor the sports wagering operator shall change a sports wager after the patron has reviewed and finalized the wager. And so I think we heard from one of the applicants now I can see it. Caesars, I believe, that they have this, like first in the, I don't know, nation maybe, feature in their online platform that allows a patron to edit a bet. So does this language preclude them from offering that? And I don't need to put you on the spot. So... No, that's my job, that's okay. So the, I will say this much, because I guess what I would want to know is a little bit more about how that edit happens. Does it become, is it a cancellation? Does it start technically function as a cancellation of the first wager and into another one? Because you'll see, I believe we talked about, we talked about this in maybe 248. I know we talked about it in, I wanna say one of the regs that came up last week as well, the cancellation of bets, et cetera. So you find out a player is not gonna be available for a game or the line has moved and you wanna change your bet. If that's the kind of thing they're envisioning, you may, it may sort of intermesh with opportunities for a patron to cancel appropriate times and someone can cancel a wager and have to be allowed to be able to cancel it. It actually may mesh well with that. So the only thing I'm not able to answer is whether it's sort of so squarely fits into this. My understanding and GLI could explain if I'm misreading the intent here or misremembering the intent here rather. This is really meant to say that certainly on the operator's side that what's wagered is wager, for the patron side that there isn't sort of a dispute over, no, no, I meant to do this. So I'm gonna come back and change it at the ticket counter or on the app. Perhaps, I don't know if we've got anybody from GLI who can clarify that Commissioner Skinner is raising that feature that was, I agree with you, I think it's Caesar's, but it could be corrected, right, Commissioner Skinner, but it is, the term was, I think, edit my bet. Do you remember that, Joe? Correct, the term is edit my bet, and I think it might have been bet MGM, but it could have been Caesar's as well. Oh, I remember the MGM, sorry, yeah. And note that when the bet in this situation is first placed that leading up to the starting time of the event, the point spread in or what we've heard to his price, minus 120, minus 110, et cetera, might change. And that change may not go in favor of the customer. In this situation, it looks as if the operators here, I think it's bet MGM as looking at the page in another window here, is allowing the patron to edit that they have placed now that the line is not so much in their favor. That seems to be what is happening here. You'd have to ask the operator specifically about this, but when that first bet is struck, it is held by the rules that we have that are written in place here. And this situation seems to only work in favor of the patron. You mean that the bet MGM edit, my bet feature, seems to only work in favor of the patron? Is that what your statement is? Yes. That's why it was appealing, right, Commissioner Skinner? Yeah, yeah. And so I don't think, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that. And so if this language does not enable that MGM, my apologies, I got the name wrong, then I wouldn't want to have this language. I'd want to tweak this language a little bit. Commissioner Skinner, if I could suggest, and just to throw it out there for discussion, if you were to want to allow, because I agree with you, this language could stand in the way of that, but just based on, again, how it's just described to me at the moment, I think you would want it to then say the sports wage and operator shall not change. It will be on one sided, that that means the patron could change it, but not the sports wage and operator, again, consistent with their house rules. So maybe to avoid it being a parent, let me just... I think that might be broader though than all operators want to do. Well, that's where I was getting to next, Madam Chair, because exactly that'd be the issue. I would say, because in my mind, that would imply as long as it's consistent with the house rules, but we could be more explicit about that and say, to the extent permitted pursuant to a house rule, at a second sentence, a third sentence, to the extent permitted pursuant to a house rule or approved house rule rather, a patron may change, may, what's the word we use, a change of sports wager after the rest of the sentence. And that would allow a particular set of house rules to contemplate it. Mr. Skinner, you're nodding your head something like that, right? Yeah, no, I like something like that one that's offered. Yeah, I think that would... Because I don't think we are not saying that every operator has to offer that option, but we don't want to prevent it. If in fact, I think we got the bet MGM right, which is a good, because that's how I interpreted the edit my bet. So thank you, Joe. Mr. Skinner, that was a really important point to raise. Thank you so much. And so... See, my brain is still working even under these circumstances. All of our brain, that's why we have the collective brain at work, right? The collective brain. Okay. So that would be an edit noted for us. This would be the second one, I think for today's consideration of this reg. Do we want to have the language repeated now, Mina? Sure. Let me do my best to try to say it the same way twice on the spot, but the first, I would suggest first in, and perhaps I can, I don't have it written out yet on the screen, but just to show you where it would go, would you like me to share the screen or carry a ride to share it? That's fine, if you can. Yep, I should be able to. We'll let you know if we see an email or two. Hope not. Can you see it in just that at the moment? So it's here in subsection nine. The first sentence would remain unchanged. The highlighted language would come out and it would then read the sports waging operator shall not change a sports wager after the patron has reviewed and finalized the wager. So there would be a not added right before change right there. And then another sentence would be added that would say, to the extent permitted by approved house rules, a patron may change a sports wager after the patron has reviewed and finalized the wager. Commissioners? Okay, not being able to see everybody, but not hearing any objection. Okay, I just want to note that for right now, before I forget that we did receive what looks like, well, no, I don't think it's in chat. It must be in our email comments. So I thought it was in chat. Okay, commissioners, any, just one second, I just lost you. I'm not being able to see everybody, there we go. Any questions on that? There we go. Okay, so let me move on. Sure, 247 await is really in the same vein as the prior section. This gets into the minimum and maximum wagers and other additional wagering requirements. Again, this is all about disclosure. The sports waging operators has to be very clear of minimum and maximum wagers in effect for each sporting event or wager. And they may, in their discretion, permit a player to wager below or above it unless otherwise directed by the commission. So again, this gets to your ability to say yes or no to that as you approve particular wager, categories, events, et cetera. I can go on to the next section, which I think I know is also one of, has had a lot of consideration, promotional offers. Section two, this is 247.09 on page 41. Section one requires operators to maintain a record of all promotional offers related to sports wagering, including the name and identification of the offer, the terms, the dates and times that it was offered or scheduled to be available. When it is expected to be discontinued and the current status of those. Section two then requires full disclosure of all the material terms of it. And then there's a list of a minimum set of those material terms, which again are dates and times, requirements for patron to be eligible, associated restrictions on withdrawing funds that go along with that and so on. So sort of the rules for all offers. The promotional offers, number three sort of has a limitation for promotional offers for new patrons. So that an offer can't be made and then sort of sit out there for too, too long and has to be no more than 90 days. And again, there has to be a way for a patron to cancel participation in a bonus or promotional offers that utilizes restricted credits can't be cashed out immediately. So these are some, again, guardrails in addition to ones that might be in place for when they're responsible gaming that might come up before you when we talk about advertising again in a few weeks that get at promotional credits. Promotional offers, excuse me. And can I ask this for the 90 days? The 90 days, is that too long? Is that, where did the 90 days come from in sub three? I will defer to GLI on that one. I believe that was consistent with some other jurisdictions requirements. Is that a median or like what's the lowest longest that's out there on these? And if GLI, anybody from GLI knows that information? Sorry, I missed the topic. Yep, if you go to page, what is 42 in our packet? So 247.093. It's talking about the implementation of pro-loaded new patrons having to be completed by 90 days. I'm curious what the universe is out there in terms of what's the minimum maximum on that in other jurisdictions? Is Mr. Robbins on? He's the one that would know. Follow me page him quick. Yeah, no, I'm here. Like so. Yeah, so I think 90 days is typical with other markets. I know we definitely pulled from another market for that. Do you know what the outside parameters are? Is anybody with less, anybody with more? I don't happen to know offhand. I'd have to circle back on that. But I think 90 days was the common one. I'd be curious to get the outside windows and other jurisdictions could get that to me. We can provide that. Ms. Addie, can you use the 90 days as a placeholder for now, Commissioner O'Brien? Yeah, I was gonna ask that question procedurally if they didn't circle back by the time we were done and getting ready to vote, whether to the extent we would wanna change that at all, what's the mechanism if these are voted on today? So these would come back in about 60 to 90 days for final vote and we could change then. If there were something more urgent, we could bring it back. We just would end up with overlapping emergency filings where we discussed this briefly before where the most recent emergency would have forced to proceed the older emergency, but they could potentially end up in the same register with different emergencies. Okay, yeah. So the only problem at that timeline then would be if for some reason it's different, we'd have to do that to have anything different in place by launch, right? Well, perhaps if there's an operator listening, your concern of course is that it's too long. I'm wondering. I mean, I'd like to be responsible as possible. 90 days, my instinct says 60, but obviously if there's not a single jurisdiction that does that and we're beyond the pale on that one, that's why I was curious to know what was out there other than 90. And I assume GNI, you would know if the patrons were complaining a lot about that, probably operators and regulators would be. In my research, I've only found 90. Okay. Thanks. Can I ask what you think, Buzz? Virginia. Virginia, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, what about Virginia? Well, the Virginia is where I found the 90 days from. I didn't see any other jurisdiction which had a greater then or less then. So is Virginia the only one that puts a time limitation on it that you're aware of? For sports wagering, yes. I do see it also listed for fantasy sports, oddly enough in Massachusetts, but for sports wagering, I've only seen it listed for Virginia. And can I ask you what is the DFS in Massachusetts? Daily fantasy sports. No, I know. The timeline. 90 days also. It's also 90. Okay, so we'd be consistent internally in terms of the AG rigs. Perhaps Virginia borrowed from Massachusetts. Yeah, I would, yeah. So it looks as though there's been some thought that perhaps giving some timeline is helpful. Commissioner Brown, does that give you a level of comfort? It does, particularly given that the AG went through this and they crafted regs on DFS and came up with 90, then that makes me more comfortable with 90. Okay. So it sounds like it's more than what most jurisdictions are offering. And so let's go with 90 days and see how that works. Because commissioners, do you agree? I'll set everyone. Okay, good. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. All right, I'm hearing no objections. Let's move on then. Thank you. Very, very helpful. I'm like, very, very helpful. Yeah, thank you. Madam Chair, the last section of 247, 24710 is exchange wagering, another peer-to-peer wagering. Once again, this is another avenue that would have to be approved by the commission to go into, before it's used. Section two, subsection two here includes the information that you would need to have in front of you to allow for sports wagering operators. Again, with the approval of the commission to participate in a network of sports wagers sort of would be able to consolidate that with risk under a written agreement. And so this one, that's sort of the purpose of 24710. And I think just key point to point out from an enforcement standpoint, the very last piece of language here is that under those agreements, again, with respect to the commission's enforcement, every party to the agreement will be jointly and severally liable for compliance with the rules and ranks. So if you have multiple operators joining together, they can't be pointing the finger at each other. If there's a problem in terms of compliance, each one of them is required to comply. Does anybody need help from GLI going through this? I see Commissioner Skinner, would you like to ask? Yeah, I could use some help understanding what a sports wagering network is. And I think just how it works. Yeah, and how this particular wagering occurs, yeah. So in this case, there's products and suppliers in the market that, I mean, let's take a full step back. When you strike a sports back, you're telling the operator, I think the Patriots are gonna win at this price, plus six points at minus 120, whatever that is for 100 bucks. In this case, instead of the operator, it's Gabe Benedict who says, you know what? No, my Eagles are gonna win this game, Joe, and I will take that $100. So in this, because of that one-to-one nature, there's products that match up those bets. And they work a little more like this, where I say I 100 on the Patriots and Gabe says, well, I got 50 of that. And then my Robin says, well, I got 25 of that. And Kevin Mullally says, well, I got 25 of that. Now I have my $100 bet and they match it up. And they take a piece, instead of $200 being the total outcome, it'll be 190 or 195, depending on what their money-making percentages. And it's simple as that. It's probably the fastest, quickest way I can explain what exchange pit-to-peer wagering is. And commissioners, just to add, this is something that we discussed during the GLI University was betting exchanges. We had a section of that where it's basically like a marketplace, where bettors can browse through different wagers that people are offering. Again, if Joe was offering a bet, and they wanna attract myself to, to that bet or lure me into that. So that's essentially what it boils down to. Mr. Questions, I have one just that's very general. It may, probably it's only something that I need answered, but because probably it's clear to everyone else. But in terms of our approval, it would be a general approval that an operator can actually entertain these kinds of exchanges, betting exchanges. And so we're approving the, just the framework, as opposed to any of the intricacies of the actual exchange. It's just the general ability to, to, to, to alter those peer-to-peer exchanges. Well, Madam Chair, from, just from the breadth of discretion standpoint, and from your sort of overall jurisdiction. Yes, you know, you're not, you are approving that, but the operator's coming to you. And I think it certainly would be well within your discretion to ask those questions, to understand the intricacies to the degree, and whatever degree you feel appropriate at that point, to approve them. So, and to put appropriate conditions on that approval as with anything else up here, including which events that may be applicable for, et cetera. So, okay, so that's my follow-up question. If we're approving some kind of a listing of events that we're going, you know, the general ones, as opposed to the ones that we'll follow, do these, I just want to share- I think really what you need to consider here is the approval of events that you're approving earlier in the chapter, that's just like events and wager categories. Those are for everyone. So, if you approve for one market, you approve for all market, excuse me, you approve for one operator, you approve for all operators. And the point of this section is each operator specifically needs to come to you and go, hey, I want to offer event wagering, and here's my layout and everything. Okay. I'd like to note that that's actually included in 247.039. And the statement is, and I'll quote, the commission shall notify all sports waging operators of any changes to authorize sports events and wager categories. And this goes right back to Commissioner Maynard's comment about the, and the other comments about Oscar events, or this is that your, the commission's in power of allowing those event types and wager types, meaning betting exchanges or parlays or exotic bets, et cetera. So to that point, so I understand that discretion, but generally speaking, when we, will they come for peer-to-peer wagering, do they have to also get approval of a subset of what kinds of events, the peer-to-peer wagering? Yes. Okay. And keep in mind, Madam Chair, that to the extent that they also need to update their house rules at that point, and you would have to approve those or those changes. And just above the section Joe mentioned on page 34 is subsection eight, which allows the commission to grant and I limit restrict or condition a request. So again, if something about the, let's say that peer-to-peer exchange seems well thought out and makes sense in the context described, but there's a concern about it expanding to something else, you, that may be a way to do that as well. That's very helpful. That's where I was going. So thank you. Thank you very much. I don't know if commissioners you have any other questions, but it just needs to understand that framework. With that, Madam Chair, I think that is it for 247, just to recap the two changes that were proposed in the course of the conversation or mentioned in the course of the conversation at 247.06 on page, on page 39 at the very end, we would be adding a subsection six to require breaks to go into the game and control fund. That's that language. And at, sorry, give me one second here, it is two- Do you remember what it was? Yes, I remember what it was, but I just want to find the page number 247.07, page 40 subsection nine would be changed so that the last sentence and a follow-up sentence would be added that would read the sports wagering operator shall not change a sports wager after the patron has reviewed and finalized the wager. And then, thank you very much, Carrie. To the extent permitted by approved house rules, a patron may change a sports wager after the patron has reviewed and finalized the wager. And Mina, there's one more, which is the 247.07. Here's the language from 248. Thank you, excuse me, yes, yes, and thank you. And then that would be the last one. Sports wagering operator shall prohibit any use of credit cards either directly or indirectly, and that follows, including without limitation, through an account funded by credit card. That mirrors exactly the other reg. Right, yes. No need to cross-reference it. Okay, those were the three. The only other question was, if you wanted to revisit 247.04. That's a good, sorry, I'm, for the same time. Regarding the chance language by chance, or if you're comfortable with it, that's written for now. I think there was a consensus that we would, we would continue to monitor that. Right. Commissioner, is am I right? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Maynard, you're, you know, I don't feel, this is an opportunity, this is, in fact, I think we might have gotten even a public comment on one of the issues that you raised that's not a form for it now, but it's important that you raised it. So, if there's something that would give you comfort without tying us in, let's think about it. Todd gave a fixed and fixed and it sounded like there wasn't a lot of interest in moving that direction. I had a hard time hearing you, Commissioner Maynard. I'm sorry. Oh, I said, Todd gave a fix to the language that would have made me more comfortable, but it sounded like there was no interest in moving in that direction. Oh, I'm sorry. If I suggested that, Todd, your language, do you remember? I can share, Todd, I think I, I think I got what you had said before. They're both in here right now, but the highlighted language was what Todd had suggested. Yeah, but do you remember? I thought that we had all talked about it and decided to leave it as is for now. Well, maybe it's helpful to see the language. I want to just give that opportunity. The commission shall not grant the petition and authorize the sporting event or wage a category unless the following minimum criteria are met. We probably figure out that colon thing. The commission shall, oh, it'd be this. Oh, yeah, these are alternatives. This would be the language instead, right? Right, right, right. We shall consider the following criteria and determine whether to allow a petition to authorize. So that's just a process difference. Mr. Minger, that is a fair question because I think if I remember correctly, Nina had said the reason why it was framed the other way was so that we didn't get presented for every idea because it might be cumbersome, but maybe that's overstated. We've seen other markets use that wording. So having replacing the wording with the highlighted red would be reasonable for the industry. Here's my concern with that though is I think we do want to make clear what our thresholds are and what our standards are. So I don't like putting all of this as optional depending on the day. I think we as a commission have certain thresholds like the outcome can be verified. It is not likely to be affected by the bets. Like this to me is sort of the minimum thresholds of what I would want to see. So I don't feel comfortable actually going to the highlighted red. I'm more comfortable with that as proposed. So to your point. Commissioner O'Brien, let's think about Commissioner Maynard's concern. What would you offer? Well, I think we come down, we may come down subjectively on different sides and whether or not something like that should be bet on and that goes again into maybe the public comment we just got, which I kind of agree with. Yeah, but let's, you know, forgetting just substance in terms of just process because maybe that's an example but maybe not an easy example but it does definitely, for me, it helped me understand the concern and the question. So what could we? I would like the Madam Chair if I may. I would like the flexibility and I said this earlier to make that decision on a case-by-case basis. I'm now hearing GLI say this language is used in other jurisdictions. Commissioner O'Brien, to your earlier point, we did agree on this. I was trying to move it along and honestly kick it to another day to live another day if we had to address it at that time but we also went through and took a scalpel to other sections that I wouldn't have taken a scalpel to. So thinking about that now and Carrie bringing it back up, honestly, I would be more comfortable with having the opportunity to make this decision as it comes. That's me. Yeah, and so for me, I think four does two things for me as written, which is one, sets a minimum threshold down. Well, it sets the minimum threshold down in terms of what we say we're not gonna tolerate unless it has this. I'm actually not only satisfied with that, I prefer it and there's the added benefit of not getting inundated with things that to me might be questionable in nature and just overwhelm potentially our ability to approve, particularly as we start off on this. But I have the screen taken down please so I can really share every box. Thank you, Carrie. Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Hill, I haven't heard from you. Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? I think I'm still where I was before. I like the original language and this is something that we need to deal with at a future date. Because I think there's a lot of unanswered questions in order for us to get the language that Commissioner Maynard wants and that Commissioner O'Brien is comfortable with. So I was a little surprised it came back up to be honest. Well, I think when we went back, Carrie quite properly raised it. I didn't raise it. I didn't raise it. No, Carrie raised it. Yeah, my apologies if I misunderstood, but I thought when we left that section, you said you wanted to revisit once we got through the whole of Reg's day. I think I said, maybe was this the one that I said, let's think about maybe another assistant? I think it was, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me that. It may not be the case, but I'll go with that. Thank you. And I do think probably I moved too quickly on that because I may not have explored Attorney Grossman's proposal well enough. And now we know that other jurisdictions use it. So I think, you know what? Let's take a minute here to make sure. So Commissioner Skinner, I haven't heard from you. I think each of the commissioners were of the understanding that we were going to table this discussion until another day until we were more informed about what it is that we're actually mandating here or limiting here. So I don't have a reason to change my position on that. Okay, so now I'm going to ask everybody, what are we, because I'm losing track now, what are we monitoring? What are we looking forward to? If we do keep this language and not entertain, but now we hear other jurisdictions using, what are we looking at? Because I'm losing track. Madam chair, perhaps I could sort of try to explain the distinction between the two, if any, because I actually, there may not be as much daylight as it appears. There's sort of two separate issues going on here. One is whether you want the framing of what is provided to you. So I think Commissioner O'Brien used the phrase sort of minimum thresholds or minimum criteria that have to be satisfied before you even use your discretion to allow it. That's sort of that. And that's what would be these five criteria. The outcome is not termed by chance. It can be verified. It's conducted in a manner ensured sufficient integrity, not likely affected by any wager place. The outcome is not affected by the wagers themselves and is in conformity with all applicable laws. That's sort of one way to look at it is if you don't meet those criteria, you will not be approved. I believe the language that Todd suggested here would instead say that these are, that language would change slightly in each of them to say whether the outcome is determined solely by chance, whether the outcome can be verified, whether the outcome is conducted in a manner that ensures sufficient integrity control. So it's sort of just in a sense changes whether or not the applicant would be denied if they don't meet that criteria versus whether you look at it instead and then you and future commissions would have to make sense of what you're looking for in that criteria in order to approve that. So that's sort of one issue that's on the procedure and how it comes to you. I think the reason this came up was Commissioner Maynard's initial question about the first one of these criteria. I haven't heard any discussion of the others about whether you want to categorically at the moment exclude asks for outcomes determined solely by chance. Commissioner Maynard asked the very good question is that required by the statute? I don't believe it absolutely is. And then whether that restricts you too much if those events come up. I think that's really a separate issue than whether or not you are, you consider it as a criteria or not at all. So there's really maybe two different ways to fix it is whether or not you, to address the issue would be whether or not you want that to be a criteria and then whether or not that's a minimum threshold or an evaluative criteria. I think that that has to do more with process. Madam Chair, can I just clarify? So the substantive question, the limited question Maynard, yes. So what I'm hearing is that as written and as agreed upon earlier, the commission would bind itself to not be able to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. But that the version that Todd laid out would make it more of a factor process, those sub-bullets that we could make a decision on a case-by-case basis. To me, the second version would give the commission more latitude to make a decision on what is coming before us. And the reason I prefer that language because I would like to have more latitude on what comes before us. And we can table the discussion to another day, which is fine, but I'm not sure that we'll get any more information that would change the structure, which is we're setting in stone and binding our hands versus we're giving ourselves the ability to make a decision as it is. I just want to articulate my point on why I prefer the Todd Grossman language that he put forward in the conversation. Missioners? So I don't view it that way. I see it as right now, as written, we set up minimum standards. Once you meet those minimum standards, we as a commission have absolute discretion from there on out. And what I see in the proposed language is anything is potentially fair game because anything in those criteria could be then assessed. I think that's too broad. And I think it would invite abuse potentially. And I think it also would overwhelm us potentially in the beginning. So I actually think the more prudent approach is to do this. And if for some reason we find, you know what, we think that's okay and this language is barring us, then at that point, the body comes back and says, okay, we need to tweak and no disrespect to Todd's language, not necessarily Todd's language, but maybe that particular criterion that you were raising and what Mina talked about in the first one. And does that become more discretionary as opposed to the entire list of criterion becoming discretionary? Okay, can I just pause on that? I think we've got the distinction in the process without going through a B, C, D and E. Are we all sure that we are committed to A right now? I am at this point. And that's because why, can you explain it? Because I think that as proposed originally, I think it gives us the guardrails that we need to go responsibly as we launch this. And I don't know enough about what might come in front of us. I mean, substantively, why is it that we agree that the outcome is not determined solely by chance? Why is that? I'm asking because I'm not sure. Because I think the ability for corruption and influence on something that's not purely by chance opens the door far broader than I am comfortable with. And I don't wanna be in a role of then having to determine whether or not something was purely by chance or outside influence. I think that goes to be a whole other query that I don't think we even have the staffing to get or the expertise necessarily to get into. And I'd present a different view, Madam Chair. Yes, please. And I respect that, Commissioner O'Brien. And there are a whole host of events, I would agree with you on. There's certain entertainment, and I used one, but there are others, right? That are currently up in the air. Jurisdictions are looking at them. We've seen information about them. GLI has presented information to about them that for entertainment purposes, I believe there could be limits, that's caps, that's setting the lines a certain way that would allow for those entertainment values to come forward. What I mean by that is that I would like the patron to have an opportunity in certain events be able to enjoy themselves in place of wager on something. And I believe that the, we're talking about multi-billion dollar corporations that are publicly traded, engaging in certain events, that the risk to the public safety, there's a mitigation risk there. And there's an opportunity to mitigate what you're worried about, Mr. O'Brien, and that would be my view. And I understand that it's different and I respect your view. Okay, now I'm gonna turn to other commissioners' thoughts on just subsection A and why we are committing to that. And if we need any help from GLI on this, I welcome it. Commissioner Skinner, commissioner Hill. Yeah, I'm gonna try. I think both commissioner Maynard and commissioner O'Brien make very good points. I was totally fine with the language as presented. Commissioner Maynard did raise a question. And I think it got us thinking about the nature of results in certain contests and certain events that I just don't think we know enough about. And before commissioner Maynard raised it, I hadn't even given a thought as to by chance versus predetermination. So, when commissioner O'Brien says that, we don't necessarily have the expertise to really dig into what the behind the scenes operations are of results determination. I just think that we do need to give ourselves some additional time to understand what other jurisdictions do along these lines. And I was comfortable when we had consensus earlier that we were going to do some more information gathering in order to be fully informed as to which direction we wanted to move in here. So, I hope that helps. I do think that both my fellow commissioners make very legitimate arguments. And I'm glad I don't have to be the one deciding solely. You may well be. Yeah, I hope not. One of five. Okay, commissioner Hill. I'll reiterate that I was fine with the language as proposed. We can move forward without language today and we can continue this discussion once we gather more information. Good points brought up by everybody today. What is front in front of us today? I'm very comfortable voting forward moving forward and coming back and readdressing as needed. Okay, and now I have Kevin. If we all chat long enough, we'll get our GLI expertise. Help us understand the implications of that. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. The intent of the proposed language was to provide the commission with as much discretion as possible and considering new wagering types while providing some guidance to the industry as to what criteria would be considered. I think that the commission has the authority to waive or take into other considerations as they choose with the language as it's written. And I think this is emblematic of the concept that we've talked about that you're moving into new territory here in some respects. Whereas on the land-based casino side, everything's very prescriptive. You set out very strict operational rules on how money flows through the casino. You lock down all the software. You have the ability to go back and check it. You put a slot machine out there, could sit there for 15 years without any alterations. This is much more dynamic. The marketplace is moving faster to respond to consumer demands. What does the public want? And so we have to take into consideration that there are wager types that haven't been invented yet that you may see six months from now. So we don't know what all the criteria are. So we think that the language proposed, as I mentioned earlier, gives the industry some guidance as to what kind of things you're going to think about, but it's not an exhaustive list. And we think it gives you ample discretion to evaluate and make decisions on any types of wagers that would be proposed that gives enough freedom for the marketplace to react to what consumers want. And I rewrite this language because of the double negatives, Mina. In other words, nothing can come to the commission unless the outcome is determined solely by chance. No, no, because actually that would not work in this case because it all just used the sort of paradigm. A major league baseball game should not be determined solely by chance. Okay, so say it again, the commission, nothing can come to us unless it is... Not determined solely by chance, the way this is... Not determined solely by chance. So this is... I'm sorry, I actually didn't mean to read my notes right. Unless the outcome is not determined solely by chance. In other words, it's a game of chance and therefore not by definition, not a wagering event. Not a wagering event. So is there other jurisdictions that do allow that? But the commissioner Maynard's point, are there others that will allow the outcome if it's not determined solely solely by chance? Madam Chair, I'm sorry that I did not note this language earlier, because as we've talked about before, I think it's important to bring up because I wonder if this maybe puts this issue to bed a little bit. Thank you. The definition of wager in the statute, actually it's not the definition of sporting event or sports wager, which is where I expected it. It's the definition of wager. A sum of money or thing of value risked on an uncertain occurrence. So that there doesn't really... So it doesn't... But that's different than chance. I think the language and the event that commissioner Maynard initially brought up is actually covered further up in this. We didn't actually talk about it. One of the prohibited categories of bets are events that are both predetermined and the public doesn't know the results. So that's one category. You can still consider those. We're only... Like the Oscars. The Oscars or a scripted, God forbid, professional wrestling. Where's that language, Nina? I'm sorry, where's that language? That is in 247... Thank you. Sorry, 247.01H, which is at the very bottom of page 31. One of the prohibited categories is any sporting event or wager category in which the outcome has already been determined and is publicly known. So it's both of those. So you can't bet on a publicly known event, but the and is important because that would allow you to bet on the Oscars. Again, assuming they fit all their definitions, it would allow you to bet on scripted entertainment if that's the case. I think and what Kevin and I are getting at for games of chance are, as I mentioned before, will it be heads or tails at the Super Bowl, at the coin flip at the Super Bowl? If the NBA lottery is in place, will the ping pong balls determine who picks where land number five for the Celtics? There is no human element whatsoever. So I think what you're debating now is whether or not you want to consider those kinds of particular events as games of chance, or excuse me, not as things that might be proposed for wagers where there is purely just chance. I hope I didn't complicate this. No, this is where I was struggling because I felt like it had, but I think the definition of wager helps us. So back to Commissioner Maynard's question, earlier question. With the definition of wager, would it include Commissioner Maynard's and without passing on anyone's thinking about the event itself? Sure, I think you have tried to give meaning to the definition of wager in that, or you would be in that other prohibition I just mentioned that whether the outcome is certain beforehand is different than whether it's certain and known to the public that it is certain. And there are protections around that, there are protections around knowing who the Oscar winner is and all of that. So that, again, I don't think is affected by this section for A. I think we're talking about something else in section for A, which are truly to use the phrase, a toss of the dice, a spin of the wheel. There is no control over it by any human element, not the script writers at an event, not the athletes on a playing field other than there, perhaps selecting the heads or tails, which is not really control. Can I ask this one more? Yes, I'm still struggling. So someone comes in to us three months from now and they have an event like this. I'm gonna quit saying wrestling, it's the perfect example. I'll say Oscars, you've used Oscars. Oscars may not be a good example to Commissioner Maynard, I'm not sure. But they come in and they say, dear commission, we wanna do, we wanna allow, right? We, your new licensee, want to allow this type of wagering. Does the regulation, as written right now, give me the opportunity to weigh whether we should do that or not? Or do I have to say, we've not met the chance, peace, done, done so, you're gone, can't do it, right? Or can I say yes? And I'm still having a hard time understanding whether or not I would have the ability to go yes or no on that. Mr. Maynard. Yes, with respect to WWE, but no with respect to the coin toss at the beginning of the game. That's as I understand it. That's the best question. Could you say that again, Commissioner Skinner, please? So to answer Commissioner Maynard's question that it would be yes with respect to events like WWE, but the answer would be no when it comes to the coin toss at the beginning of the game. That'll be my understanding of the language as written as well. And that's why I brought up that other example. This particular language does not, this section on its own does not prohibit the wagering or your consideration of wagering on predetermined events as long as they're not known to the public, the results not known to the public. It would prohibit you from considering the coin flip, the purely chance type event. Okay. And the policy behind that is? The policy behind that, and I think Kevin started, you mentioned a phrase that to me articulates it, is that those are games of chance and are simply distinguishable from sports wagering, which involves betting on something happening in the world out there that while not, well, we don't know exactly how it will turn out. There's a basis of data for someone to play the game of deciding, is it more likely to turn out this way or that on something other than pure probability or chance? And so I would sort of say the distinction, I mentioned the roulette example before. Roulette is a pure game of chance. I, assuming it's a well-regulated table, the ball could end up anywhere and neither the dealer, spinner, or me have any control over that. And that's different than the script writers. You could try to foresee what the script writer might do. You could try to foresee what kinds of performances typically win an Oscar, right? There's sort of data behind it that one could use in making their wager. You can't really do that in the coin flip other than to say, you know, other than really conspiracy theories, frankly, about whether a coin is weighted one way or another. Yeah, I think, Madam Chair, if I may, I think the, I understand, yes, it's very helpful because it's not, I wanted you to continue. Go right ahead, Kevin, yeah. Yeah, I think the one criteria that stands out here is the chance factor because I think that it's hard to make an argument that the commission would approve a wager that can't be verified or it's conducted in a manner that's outside the integrity controls or it's not likely to be, the outcome is not likely to be affected by a sportsway. You wouldn't want the wager to affect the outcome, right? Like a match fiction scenario. And you wouldn't, certainly wouldn't want a wager that is not in conformance with all applicable laws. So the one discretionary item is, is there anything wrong from a integrity standpoint in allowing a wager on a coin flip or some similar analogy? And I think that's where that would be the policy issue, I think in front of the commission. And there's two ways to tackle it. Either you take out the solely determined by chance or you alter the language and say, where you say we shall not grant and say in considering a new wager type, the commission shall evaluate a minimum the following criteria or something along those lines. But either way, I mean, I'm mindful of one of my early mentors that used to say, Kevin, remember whenever you write a rule, you're actually limiting your discretion. So I think that the intent from the drafters, from the GLI drafting team was again, to provide some guidance, to provide some categories where we would say, look, don't even bring this to us. Don't bring us an event wager where the outcome can't be verified, but allowing the commission as much discretion as possible to decide on things that people may not even thought of yet. Questions, we don't, so. We don't have a question other than a comment that it doesn't change where I stand on the language. I think it helps to understand maybe one of the concerns you raise, which is the idea that it's just a matter of corruption because really it really does get into the definition of wager and it would, it is broader than perhaps our earlier discussion. So it's clarification on wager, what wager means and what we would be really isolating. The truth is, is that we are going to have to approve events and that we can work to assure all the integrity, the integrity issues that Kevin was just raising. The interesting thing about it in sort of practical sense is when you flip a coin, as long as you know the coin has a head and a tail, it seems to be quite free of corruption. So I'm having a little bit of struggle thinking, why are we using that as our example, but it is certainly an event solely based on chance. And so I understand it more in terms of how sports betting takes place. I think about it as a wager more than why it wouldn't be a good thing to wage on. But I think people do think that that is a legitimate event to be able to bet on. The ordinary person may say, oh, that would be something I would want to bet on. Where's the toss? So it's interesting. That's all. It's an interesting example, Kevin. And I say that just because the ordinary, somebody who is just loves to watch a good football game, may say that that's the one thing that they would have liked to bet on. Because it's very, very clear. But I understood it in terms of wager definition. For me, Mina, that was very, very helpful. In the and clause. Commissures, all clear? All right. So I think, Commissioner Mina, did that help you get comfortable with the structure? Or would you like, understanding it does make a discretion? You're good? I'm good because I am just as entrenched as Commissioner O'Brien is. I will not vote to limit our discretion. So we'll wait to see what our motion is. Okay. You know what I think? It's 12-14. This is the conclusion of this particular presentation. Right, Mina, on 12-5 to 14-7. Correct. So before we take a bet, that too, maybe we can all place bets on how this is going to go. Before we take a vote on this, I know that I would like to be reflecting on the language a little bit more. I would ask that we maybe take a short break and then return for consideration as to how we move forward on this. Does that make sense? Commissures? Okay. So let's return it to 12-30. And then we'll move on after that to 14-5 to 14-8. The one update I did want to say is that I know that on our agenda, Madam Number Four, we are going to consider for discussion only the marketing affiliates and registrations. I am recommending that that come off today's agenda. Director Lillios is ill. She's really integral to that conversation. It was only up for discussion and I think we can combine that discussion with a future meeting. Does that make sense? Commissioners, I'm seeing one thumbs up, shitting out of your head, and I don't, and Commissioner Skinner's thumb. Excellent. So we'll return to whether you move vote on a vote for 247 and then we'll go right to 248 at 12-30. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Thank you, everyone. Because we're holding this meeting virtually, it's a reconvening of Massachusetts gaining commission meeting number for 16, my apologies. I'll take a, I think I've got everyone. I'll take a, Commissioner Skinner's, hopefully there she is. I'll take a, we'll call Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. And Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. So if you allow me, I'm struggling with just how the reg is written and hearing my fellow commissioners. It is, you know, I know that there's, there may be a more of a consensus on one end, but I'm struggling a little bit and I wonder if GLI and, I mean, if you could help me out. I feel, and I may be, and I want commissioners to correct me, but personally, I want to ensure that the language, as I understand A through E, the intention is to probably restrict anything that will come to us that would compromise integrity. A wasn't as obvious to me and I'm sort of struggling with that. And I wonder if after by chance there's something that could be added on. But I'm also struggling with the language that we start with. Because as much as I see A through E is probably focused on integrity, I'm always wondering, I think, I can't remember if it was Joe or Dave who said, but we also want to keep in mind innovation. And so I want it, I want to make sure that at the beginning, if in fact it's only about integrity, then I don't probably personally have a big problem of limits, but if it impacts the ability to hear an innovative proposal that will never come to us because they're gonna say we can't meet A through E then I might have concerns. Does that make sense to me? I can help me out if I'm not making any sense and then commissioners chime in. Yeah, it does. And so I know we've talked about this one a bit, but just to clarify it, I was thinking a little bit about your, pointing out the double negative, Madam Chair in the beginning. Another way to say for just the language and for would be to say simply, the commission may grant the petition and authorize a sporting event or wager category if the following minimum criteria are met. That's sort of the positive way to say it as opposed to the negative. So that's sort of, but they'll still mean the same thing. At the end of the day, what this does is it wouldn't limit innovation in any category, frankly, except for games determined solely or wagers determined solely by chance. The other things, and I think, Kevin I believe was the one that made this point, the other ones don't seem to be in dispute. You want the outcomes to be verified because that's an integrity issue. You want to make sure that there's sufficient integrity controls, obviously an integrity issue. You don't want it to be persuade. You don't want the fact that there are bets being made to influence the outcome and it has to be legal, right? So really the only one of these that acts more as a prohibition on categories of wagers, great, large is A. And that's why I was emphasizing that before. It doesn't, now, I think we kind of, it doesn't limit the one particular example, type of example we were talking about with respect to the Oscars or wrestling, but it would limit, I would say, if this was on the books today and you asked us, can we accept something on a coin flip? The answer would be, it'd be difficult to fit that in. Maybe under some circumstances, but it'd be really difficult to say that that's not solely by chance. And the, forgive me, the reason why, the reason why we don't accept that is more about sports betting as a business model than as an integrity issue. Or if it's an integrity issue, could you give me another example other than the coin toss? Kevin, maybe? Okay. Yeah, I could possibly add in here. Half time show length is an example. Let's go to the next one, and let's... That's predetermined, it could be predetermined. Here's really one that'll hit home. The color of Gatorade, that's gonna get thrown on the coach, the winning coach at the game. Right? The color of the Gatorade. We wouldn't be able to determine, that's integrity though, right? That's what you're saying? Has somebody could have told the... It's both. Right. Yeah, it's both, but that, I mean, right? If someone's gonna throw color at Gatorade, there's probably a lot of people that are gonna know what color that Gatorade's gonna be. Well, that's not totally by chance. Yeah, to be honest, I wouldn't describe that by chance because the players, again, if someone was really into this, and I don't wanna get to silly season, they could research what kind of Gatorade is typically on the winning team sideline, you know, what the star player prefers, et cetera. It really is, you know, it's hard to think of ones that are a roll of the dice, a coin flip, a bouncing ping pong ball, something like that. So I can't say that it doesn't have any integrity piece. I think for me at least in my side of the drafting of this, this particular provision was intended more to align with what is sort of within the role of a sports wager versus a wager on a game of chance, I think is the phrase that Kevin mentioned. So this is a policy call for the commission, whether or not you want to... I wouldn't say... I would say potentially, you know, there is a way to clarify that to say solely determined on a game of chance. That way you take out, because a game of chance really, now we're getting into slot machines and I think really what we're trying to prevent is wagering on another guy playing a slot machine or another guy playing another game, another chance, pure chance-based game. Yeah, so... That's helpful. That's helpful. I'll let Kevin speak over me here as my filter here. But, you know, I look at the rule and it says that the public can petition the commission for a approval of a sport wagering or event category. Okay. So I just, one of the family of Millbury, Massachusetts petitions the commission to have Joe's wheel bet on at four o'clock today. And I'm taking sports bet on that action. This is my game and I'm going to get it. I want the commission to approve this game where, you know, it's got 12 slices and I pay out only 10 to one and I get 12 people to bet on this wheel and I spin it. And your sports wagering, because you're all pulling it, you know, you're all betting into me on this wheel, but the outcome is, you know, this unregulated game of chance. And this instantly filters out all those type of wild type proposals that can possibly happen. And trust me, they are out there. So that's the framework. And here's the thing, in the end, the commission is granted the right here to approve or disapprove my event, Joe's wheel spin at four o'clock, and my bet type, no matter what. So like in the end, the framework here is for you guys to decide on what's allowed and what's not. And Kevin, you can correct me if I'm wrong. No, I think the sole issue before the commission is whether you want something that is solely determined by chance to be strictly disqualified or whether you wanna move that criteria to paragraph three and have the operator describe how the element of chance plays into the bet proposed and leave it to the discretion of the commission to evaluate how chance impacts that. I'll read a statement from our math team that was on a completely different issue that I remembered it from a really old email. And it was about the issue of skill versus chance in our, one of our senior math people said, let me first start by emphasizing we do not test or offer an opinion that skill is a dominant factor over chance or vice versa, a mathematical formula for making this decision does not exist. It is an opinion that can be formulated by a person or an evaluating body. Our testing is to provide empirical evidence that supports the claim that an element of skill exists within the game under the conditions the game was tested. So that just shows you mathematically how complicated this can get. Yeah. And you just need to make a decision whether you want it to be automatically disqualifying or whether you wanna be able to consider. Yes, I would like to just add one quick note on top of that, that in a real world jurisdiction, Colorado has a similar clause about the chance and the operators, suppliers, public of Colorado have brought forward, can we bet on the puppy bowl? And their response was integrity issue slash chance because who knows which way a puppy's gonna go. So, this was an actual thing brought to commission even with that agreed upon regulation in place. So, and they had the discretion of saying like, no, here's why. So, to Kevin's point, if we put it into the other section then this section four would be really restricted to integrity guardrails, I'll use that word. And putting into three would mean that the commission would have more discretion to perhaps entertain something that one might say, well, it's solely by chance by that operator might say, well, I've got an argument and let me put it forth in front of you. Is that work? And commissioners, I'm just looking for your input. Mina, what are you thinking when you heard Kevin's proposal? I think Kevin nailed it on the head of what the question is before you is, do you want to say no to those now or do you want to have them describe to you and then you could say no or yes or no. I think that would address that particular issue to move it to a weather, et cetera. The outcome is determined solely by chance as a criteria in three that they have to describe to you. So, if I may, Madam Chair. Yes. There's another issue when we're getting into the policy question of this which is responsible gaming and whether we want people being able to get online and bet on things like that. I would want to hear out of curiosity how many jurisdictions do allow it and whether there's an RG component to allowing pure games of chance. Did Mark have an opinion on that? I don't know. Madam Chair. Yes. Couldn't that be weighed, couldn't that issue and it's a legitimate issue? Commissioner O'Brien, couldn't that be weighed on a case-by-case basis? I personally would want to know about it before I even open it up as options. That's my view on it. That we've been talking about this for quite some time. I'd be curious to know what that component of this is if we're going to be continuing on with this or whether we get that information of other jurisdictions and RG and come back and finalize this the 29th or the third. So, if I could just add some context this would just be another potential event or wager and we're going to be evaluating lots of those while taking into consideration our complete prioritization and commitment to responsible gaming and protecting patrons. So, I don't think we necessarily need to sort that answer out for this particular issue. I think what the struggle is- I would respectfully disagree with Madam Chair on that one. I'm sorry, commissioner. I don't agree with that analysis on this one. I think whether we as a commissioner allowing this is a broader question than put it in and then we'll deal with a case-by-case later. So, I don't necessarily agree with that characterization on that. Okay, I was gonna say I think part of the problem that we were trying to struggle with is A almost seems misplaced from the others. Sorry, I tried to raise my hand and I think I clapped, so please disagree. I like clapping too. Thank you. Just, yeah, I'd love to hear Mark's opinion on this, if he's on, but from an RG perspective, I mean, problem gambling generally is an impulse control disorder and I don't know that whether it's a game of chance or a sports wager has a mere material impact on whether a person either has a problem or develops a problem or exacerbates the problem that they have, it would be something that would be interesting to study, but based on the research that I'm aware of, I would not see an RG connection here. Keep in mind too that many jurisdictions have already authorized full, so the whole thing with the game solely determined by a game of chance is you'd be closing out eye gaming effectively at this point, which is fine, that's directly under your regulations. Other states have eye gaming, but it's usually typically under a separate regulation. So if you changed it either how Kevin mentioned it or how chance factors into it, or if you changed it to solely determined by a game of chance, then that prevents someone from wagering on Joe's wheel at four o'clock to use an earlier example. But at the end of the day, the commission still has discretion. If it says you can't do this and an operator submits a petition for it, you could turn around say no, but you're also forced in the way it's worded now to say no, even if someone makes an argument that it would be okay to say yes, whereas using the modified verbiage of what Todd had or by moving it into the previous section, as Kevin mentioned, still enables the commission the ability to say yes, but it does not supersede any ability of them to say no. Commissioners, I think I see Mark that you've joined. If you wanna weigh in on this issue, that's fine, but I understand it's a little bit of a nuanced discussion, Director. Yeah, I think you're right, Madam Chair, and I had just sat back down and I heard the RG discussion, so I feel like I need to get some more information or I can weigh in, thank you. There'll be a lot of events to weigh in on, that's for sure. So commissioners, we had a little bit of a fix offered from, oh, there's Kevin's hand up again. I'm gonna let him elaborate because I was about to quote him. I think that was my hand from previously, let me figure out how to put it down. That's okay, as long as I know. Okay, there we go. I'll try to make sure that's here. At least in the cap again. Commissioners, so we have Kevin's recommendation that perhaps A, go into, and maybe we need to see that carry where it might go and that would offer some discretion over that particular issue versus BCDE, and I just lost my, I forget if there's an aphrodisiac. And that would allow discretion over what was the original A in subsection four. And me, I was gonna ask that. I was gonna ask to see the language again because I was wondering if there is a compromise along the lines of what you just suggested. Yeah, so Kevin is suggesting it's maybe not a compromise. I wanna make sure that as the other subsections are very clearly tied to the issue of integrity. And I think A is harder because it's almost a, it's more of a little bit of an offering issue. And there's always integrity on every offering. Every offering is always gonna be integrity. So if we look up and if we think about what Kevin was saying, I think that's maybe where you were going, Kevin, you can elaborate and maybe Carrie can bring up the reg up. And Kevin, you could say what you were suggesting because I haven't been able to follow it exactly. And as a reminder, the other reason my understanding that I did it was to not have us overwhelmed in the beginning, if I heard them correctly, that was part of the other rationale for putting A in there at the time, but maybe I misheard that. No, you did use them initially and I wonder if Mina stands by that. But I do did hear too that the other jurisdictions have the language that Todd offered. So keep that in mind as well. That was the second factor. So, Kevin- If somebody could also just give us how many jurisdictions have the language and allow it, that would be helpful for me. Okay, Kevin, if we could look at the language that you are going to propose, please. And we're gonna give- Kevin, let me know if this is not what you had in mind. I just put something in the O3 section, but hold on a second. Can you enlarge it just a little bit for us, please? Thank you. Excellent. Yes, yes, Carrie, that's exactly. So it would go into the petition. What section is this? It's 0.033. Yeah. And the only thing I would add is, if you choose to do this, is you might build it out a little more and ask them to explain how the element of chance would not affect the integrity of the event or wager. So the comma, like a semicolon, put a comma, or the outcome of this for it is determined. And how, and add that language, maybe. There may be a sub under five, if, if, if- Nina's not, I think Nina's got a concern. Let's go with that. Yeah, I just wanna be, I know we have focused a lot on this one issue today, but let's keep in mind that this is one category of games that might come before you. You're gonna consider integrity for all others. Put language in connection with one issue. It suggests sometimes that that's where it matters and not anywhere else. So I would actually say, leave it as is. What I might say is whether and to what extent the outcome of the sporting event or wager it categories determined solely by chance. And that gets you to that same point. And not to disagree with Kevin that you wanna analyze that, where you're gonna do that, whether it's a bet on a brand new sport that is clearly not by chance or this. Yes. And the RG considerations, integrity, consumer protections, all those overriding issues. They're, I mean, a good, good reminder. Okay. So commissioners, let's discuss this on potential solve and see if it gets close to, perhaps what commissioner Maynard raised and then hear from each of you. Let's keep the language up for a minute. Everybody died. What would be the changes? I'm sorry, Madam Chair. What would be the changes to that other section that references? Okay. So the one that, this is in section three now and then section four that would, that would, we would take out that subsection A. Okay. And then solely by chance one. And it would come up. The original language would remain as to all of the other sub sections. I think that's right. And then this becomes part of a petition for a new event. I like this because I'm, you know, as you were, you know, describing sort of the misplacement, if you will, of that particular section in the, in the reg, I'm seeing it a little bit more the way you see it in terms of offering rather than something that is exclusively tied to integrity. Okay. I thank you commissioner Skinner and I can return back to you, but now I'll hear from commissioner Hill cause I haven't heard from him for a bit. I'm looking at the language and I, I think I want to call it compromise language. I think it addresses what commissioner Maynard had in mind. And if he's okay with this, then I'm okay with adopting it and moving forward. Okay. And I know commissioner O'Brien, we've heard from you briefly on this. So I'm going to turn to commissioner George, commissioner Maynard. You can call me commissioner Jordan. I think it, it definitely goes a long way in addressing my concerns, which I've always been that I want the commission to be able to take up as many events as the marketplace can dream up and make a decision case by case on it. So this definitely goes a long way to getting me to a yes. Okay. So commissioner O'Brien, how do you feel about this with this potential fix? And now if we could take it down so I can see faces. So as a policy matter and particularly launching, it doesn't solve the concerns that I had. I prefer the original language, but if it works for everybody else, then you can go ahead and take your vote. Okay. GLI, I'm hearing it from Kevin Mulally as a good fix without compromise. Do we stand by that, Kevin? I'm sorry, what was the question? That you stand by it, that it's not a compromise to the integrity piece that compared to the original, that it might be more of a clarification as opposed to a compromise on integrity? Yeah. Yeah, I think it's, again, I'm not a commissioner just offering you as many options as possible. I don't think it certainly compromises the integrity. You have the ability to say yes and no. It's just with the guardrails that you put up, the other criteria, I think can be universally agreed upon are major integrity problems. And it's frankly just a policy decision for you as to whether something is solely based on chance, whether that falls within those, whether that's aligned with those other categories or whether that's a factor that the commission should consider when evaluating a wage type. And again, we have, from a lab perspective, we can do whatever you wanna do. It's your preference in your policy. Yeah. Okay. All right, now turn to our in-house council, Todd. Yeah, I mean, I think it gets you where you wanna go, at least what the majority has talked about. I mean, it offers a little bit more discretion than the initial language that was proposed. Yeah. Okay, I'm gonna call the question then unless I hear any other questions from the commissioners. Okay, so for discussion, we do wanna, if we're comfortable, we could move forward on this particular reg, which is 205 CMR 247. Madam Chair. Yes. I move that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft 205 CMR 247 as amended in our conversation today and as included in the commissioners packet and discussed. I further move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth, by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process. I further move that staff shall be authorized to modify chapter or section number or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. I have a second. Second. Okay, any further questions or edits? And that would, do we need to go through the edits one more time for the record? Mina? I think legal should, yeah, let's stop. I'm happy to try to run through the four edits. And... Do you want me to show them or list the section numbers? Yes, please. Please list them, yeah. Yeah, please. Mine. So it's 247.033. That's the one that we just did. 247.034. 247.066. 247.077. And 247.079. Any further clarification on that needed commissioners? I'll send. All right, then I'll take the vote. Commissioner O'Brien. Nay. Okay, commissioner Hymn. Bye. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. So four one. Thank you. So now we'll move on. And I'm looking at the time it's 104. Do we need to break for lunch or can we continue on? Continue on for a bit, okay? Moving on then to our agenda is 205 CMR 248. That's on account management. So Madam Chair, I think I am up for this one as well. And Carrie and I talked offline. I think that I'll give a brief introduction this time. This is what it sounds like. These are the rules for the management of patron accounts. There are 19 subsections once again, just like the last one, there's some intricacies, but so I will try to get through some of the big picture items and some issues that I know we wanted to flag to note or talk about. A lot of this dovetails with some of the provisions we talked about last week in 138 and 238. In particular, as you're looking at this, I want you to remember the conversation we had about privacy and data security issues, which was inserted as a new part of 138 and now applies for both mobile and in-person because that is one of the safeguards here on the privacy side, although there are also safeguards for other issues affecting the patron experience, responsible gaming, proper access to account, et cetera. So, and as I said before, if others on the team notice that I've gone past something that we intended to address directly, please feel free to stop me. 248.01 and 02 kind of set out some of the basics. Sports rager accounts may be used, so there may be, you can set up an account or our buyers may offer that. Only wagers through mobile applications or digital platforms have to use a sports rager account. That's 248.01, three. And I apologize, I meant to mention two, which is that the patron is the only person that can have an account. They're not transferable and it is limited to one account per person, which I'm not seeing directly here, but I believe is in a later section. So again, this is a, I had a lag on my end, so I'm just making sure everyone, you could hear me at least, let no problems there. Okay, account registration 248.03, this is where the collection of data regarding the patron comes into play. This information allows the operator to have a system and dovetails with their internal controls for making sure that folks who are not permitted due to age or disqualification or self-exclusion or otherwise to hold an account at the moment are being registered for accounts. So that's sort of the verification piece of it and the input. Again, this is one of those sections that's lengthy, but the reason for that is to capture the necessary details for it. I'm going a bit fast, so please stop me if you need to. 04 is tied to the same piece. This is the age and identity verification. The 20, you have to have a method for verifying age, including electronic verification. There's a provision in here says the section shall not be construed to prevent a restricted person from creating a sports wagering account and depositing funds. So that's a little bit different that has to do with, I believe, and Jill, I can correct me if I'm wrong, as it might be for employees or others, but it's not to allow underage wagering by any means. It also gives the operator, this is where some of the, this section and an earlier section, 24802, I wanna say, give the operator some discretion to refuse to open accounts if they see suspicious behavior or that they have good reason to believe that there is an issue with the person's qualification to open an account. 24805 is the section I mentioned before, limitation of one account per person, and that there's a way to, if somebody tries to register multiple accounts, that there's a way to stop that and also have a procedure perhaps to deactivate all their accounts. If they're trying to kind of get around the system in one way or another. 24806 has to do with the terms and conditions and privacy policies, as with other regs we've talked about, the focus here is on transparency and disclosure to the patron in making sure that there is a readily accessible terms and conditions and privacy policy for anyone who might be setting up an account that goes to a whole host of things, including how they deal with lost password, everything from lost passwords or what they can do on with the money in their account, et cetera. Page 50, section three, subsection three here, this has to do with again, the privacy policies, including at a minimum the protections under chapter 93H and the access to personally identifiable information. A question I believe that was raised last time that isn't necessarily covered directly here, but it's a good opportunity to mention it is under the internal controls regs, 93H, and I believe it's 201CMR, 117 are the sort of Commonwealth's data privacy and data breach notification procedures. And we had added in the internal controls regs a requirement that the commission also received notice. And one question was, what if the data notification that happens under state law is late, is not well done? And due to reasonable enforcement and prosecution choices on other state agencies that kind of goes unchecked, what can the commission do about it? And the short answer to that is by placing it there and here you have also made it a requirement of your regulations. And so your enforcement of your regulations would also include enforcement of the requirement to comply with 93H and 201CMR. So there's a sort of added layer of protection where the commission can step in if patrons information is leaked and proper measures aren't taken to responsive. 248.07 is account access. It has to do with, again, how patrons access their accounts using password and username or alternatives, secure authentication credential, really ensure that only the patron has access to their account. This gets into some of the sort of tech standards for making sure that that's in our following best practices elsewhere on how to secure accounts. I mean, I have a question on 07. Sure. I think we've had some presentations where there's the option for a dual factor authentication to actually set up your account and not just when it looks like it needs to be deployed for retrieval, I'm wondering if I understand that not every patron wants to deal with that, that that's additional friction for that they just don't want that. I wonder if it would be really off industry standards to require that there's an option available for that upon setting up your account. If we're going to mandate that they have to have it available for retrieval, I wonder if they need to at least give the option for patrons. Just to chime in here, the option here specifically for password retrieval. So it's not for like just logging in to your account your day to day. I understand and I'm wondering if we should give patrons the option to be able to use a dual factor authentication for logging in to make their account more secure. We've had an inquiry from media on this. And so it's not coming out of thin air. And but I also don't know if that's would be a huge backend requirement on operators to do a device. Right. We'd have to circle back to you on that one on whether or not. So basically what we've seen in other markets is they require two factor authentication for specific scenarios. So if your account is locked or if you need to retrieve your password, but as far as requiring it on every login, New Jersey is the only one who not requiring it, making it available as an option for the patient. Cause I understand that some patrons don't want to deal with that. I understand that, but some may want that additional security. That's really my ask, Mike. Not require, but they make it available as an option. Is that what you're saying the requirement is that they require as an option? Yeah. Yeah, so we can take a look at other markets and see which markets require that as an option. I don't know off the top of my head at the... Yeah. I guess I'm wondering if most operators offer it now. Cause we've seen... I think more operators are offering it as like a best practice rather than a... Rather, you know, as a business decision. Cause, you know, they don't want bad press like, you know, the recent breach in one of the operators. Yeah. So, Michelle, as I just throw that out, it was a question that came through our communications director. And honestly, I think that I had already noted it in at least one of our presentations that it was an option available. So it was a while ago, but I, you know, this kind of begs for it if we want to say, you know what? You need to make it at least an option for our patrons or if that's just too much of a business burden. Madam chair, this is, I apologize to jump in. This is more of a question for GLI or as they look at this for other places too. I'm aware and I'm your lawyer and I write your professional that there are multi-factor authentication apps and websites that are available that allow somebody to sort of add other passwords. You know, for instance, you know, if a patron wanted to, could perhaps tie their account to one of those apps so that they would be required or anybody else trying to log into your account would be. And I guess one question for operators would be, is there anything in their setup that blocks the use of those at a minimum? So that is, because I know, for instance, we have one here in our office that I have now used for other features. Good question. The only jurisdiction that actually requires it now is New Jersey. They require the option or do they require that? To log in. No, actually, I believe the standard requires that when a person uses two-factor auth on one device, the platform they don't have to re-auth for 14 days upon login. But when they go to access their account on another, a new device, two-factor auth is required. And they have a June 30th deadline. I am, I could be corrected here because I'm doing this live to comply. And I believe that is 2023. So New Jersey is the only one. This is recent, I want to say with an, I want to say October this year. Commissioner's, I don't mean to interrupt the flow here, but that was just a thought. If we want to put in the parking lot and think about whether or not we want to ask for it to be an opt-in, at least an opt-in requirement by a certain date, seems to me if they have to have a multi-factor authentication process for the retrieval then probably the framework, the technological framework is probably there. So, Gabe, are you leaning in? I was just going to add to what Joe said, Pennsylvania actually joined New Jersey. So they're the only two states so far in the US that are requiring the multi-factor authorization or authentication for their sports betting apps. And I think they have to implement it by the end of this year. So they are another one. So they're requiring it on a log in, not even opting, not even a patron opt-in. Or is it so that the patrons can opt-in if they want? I'm just trying to understand the language, I have to say. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't necessarily talk at the time, so bear with me. Well, those aren't too bad state. Those are two pretty good states to be looking at. We certainly have relied on Jersey and Pennsylvania for guidance in the past. So, commissioners, maybe Carrie can get that language and we can come GLI and see if we wanna do something as Meena continues, would that make sense? Just in light of the progress, I'm not hearing any objections. So that's keep, oh, Commissioner Maynard? No, I'm saying I support that. Okay, good. All right, then Meena, if you could continue, then maybe Carrie can get that language at Pennsylvania and Jersey's Entertaining. Thanks, GLI. Sure, and we can talk about that language at the end. Thank you. 248.08, this is the account balance. This is a very simple, right, Reg, but I only noted because part portion of it's sort of another check and balance on making sure there's no gambling on credit or, excuse me, sports wagering on credit because you can't place a wager if your account falls below zero. 248.09 and 10, this starts getting into sort of how the transactions happen in an account. They're 248.09 simply gets into a confirmation or denial of transactions so that you know they happened. 248.10 repeats what we talked about at 247, the methods in which you can fund an account, including the language in 248.10.3 on page 52 regarding credit. That's where we got that language from that we talked about in the earlier, Reg, in 247. You have to, again, follow your system of internal controls under four and so on. So that's sort of the funding piece of it of how an account is funded. 248.11 has to do with failed funds transfers that, again, kind of as a sort of basic account control. 248.12, yet another set of protections for the account having to do with withdrawals to prevent unauthorized withdrawals. The 248.12.2, I'll just note is a provision that addresses the requirement that a patron has to be allowed to withdraw their account, their funds from their account without further solicitation or promotion in risk of funds or deposit. So you're not encouraged to put it back in if you wanted, at that point, to take money out. An account request for withdrawals is a sort of limited time period on which to be able to get the money out that was inserted just to make sure that this isn't sitting out there for a while where someone's trying to get their money. The 248.13, 14, really 15, all three really have to do with auditing and kind of control of the account, making sure that the numbers are correct and that they're properly adjusted. 16, this ties to some of the responsible gaming regs I believe you already implemented that you have to be able to set deposit limits, has to be an option on an account, and any decrease or limit is effective immediately. There isn't sort of a wait period on that. This is intended to be consistent with the statute. Again, the efforts you've made around responsible gaming. 248.17 gets to account suspension and restoration. There are provisions for when an account is suspended, when a patron requires it. If a patron says I want to suspend my account, that has to last at least 72 hours. The commission may suspend accounts. An operator determines a prohibited person has an account that could be a reason to do it. Or if there are sort of red flags, like an illegal activity, negative balance, violation of terms of condition, an operator can do it. Then this sort of explains, section two explains sort of the obvious things about what happens when an account's suspended. It sort of prevents the patron from using it at that point. We've drawn funds unless funds have cleared. You want to be careful that folks aren't trying to suspend an account just to take money out they're not supposed to. That's all 48.17. And three, sorry, is how to lift a suspension if there was a temporary suspension by the person that sort of automatically gets restored or if the commission authorizes it. Again, if someone's no longer prohibited or sort of the investigation on something that's cleared, the reason for the suspension. 248.18 is closure of accounts. Patrons are permitted to at any time close a sports wagering account. And sports waging operators can also close accounts on their own. If a patron makes repeat attempts to operate with an insufficient balance so that they sort of seem to be trying to wager on credit in can't. That's another red flag. Remaining balance in account has to be refunded within five business days to the patron at that point once an account is closed and again provided the funds have cleared. So those are sort of the major account controls. Last piece and this one does have a slight change is abandoned funds and dormant accounts. We modeled this largely believe under what you might already have, I think in the gaming side and Todd also communicated with the state treasurer's office to make sure, see if they had any comments. They did have one slight comment that I think Carrie will put on the screen in section one. But they otherwise, I believe, Todd correct me if I'm wrong, we're comfortable with this language at the, and this is, Carrie, if you don't mind putting that language up, that'll be perfect, very small edit. Just to add that sports wagers customer generated deposits or customer generated withdrawals are what are considered activity as opposed to, you know, for instance, the adjustments or credits that I mentioned before, which might be operator generated, excuse me. So in other words, an account would be dormant, even if there have been sort of automatic adjustments being made or promotional credits being added if the patron has not accessed it. That's the idea. Oh, that's helpful. Yeah. So that is it for these. We can return now if you'd like to 248.07, which is the one we were talking about before, unless there are questions on any of this. Can I also raise one other issue? At first, if I wanna check with the, maybe Commissioner O'Brien, you were thinking something that I'm thinking of. Commissioner O'Brien. Well, the only thing I wanna make sure that we have in the calendar to go back to is we have a discrepancy right now. The money that's put in by patrons into their ADW accounts on the paramutual side is not treated as abandoned property when it's inactive for three years. And we had talked about wanting to make sure that we were treating these similarly. And so I am all for treating the three year, quiet accounts as abandoned property and turning it over to the treasurer's office. But I do want us to remember to circle back to the reg that deals with this in ADW because it's not handled that way right now. Another to-do. Thanks, and Commissioner O'Brien, I'm gonna ask if you can just keep that on your to-do so that we don't lose track of that, okay? Thank you. Before we go on, I am hesitant to raise this issue, but we certainly have talked about it in our evaluation. I'm just not sure if it falls into this reg or elsewhere, but, and I'm not sure if there'll be a debate, but it is the issue that raises some equity issues around and some other, there's been some other issues that have come up is the preregistration of accounts before the license is issued as well as the preloading of accounts before the issue, before the license actually issues. Is that, I bet that's on your checklist, but is it going to go somewhere else, Mina? Thank you for raising that, Madam Chair. I'd like to say that I've meant to. It is not covered in this reg expressly. However, keep in mind that as you approve internal controls, less of house rules, but as you approve internal controls and as you go from license to operating certificate, you're going to have to go through that piece of it. So that is one place where I believe it would be. I don't, I don't, I recognize that this may have come up during some of the conversations around licensing. And so we had not put it into this initial draft one way or another. The reality is only a sports wagering operator can even solicit or sort of set up accounts. So in theory, they'd have to get their license first. So now we're talking about, so that period in between really is yet to come because no one has officially been given the license. You've had a vote, I believe, on one or two, but. So to that point, we have had, right? Executive Director Wells had some, either current licensees under 23K or potential licensees under 23K and asked for guidance on that. We've also heard from GLI that, that's kind of standard practice right now that preregistration would be taking place. And so I hear Nina say, well, that's actually not what they can do. I think that that, or maybe you didn't say it that way. No, I guess I would say this reg doesn't address it one way or another. I think the argument that, I think the sort of tough part and why I can understand the applicants asking is all of this is worded as the operator may do this or that. And if I were representing an operator, I might ask the question, at what point do I become an operator that can start doing these things or not? And so I think it's an opening. Very helpful, very helpful. So I think I hear Nina say, Justin might come later in our discussion, but I wonder if that's fair because we've got those questions in front of us. Not, I don't think it's right for today's discussion, but we do need to get this on the agenda and then figure out where it's in the regulatory scheme. I think it's been on our list. So meals are turning. I can see where we might want to get this in. First off, do we all agree it's worthy of some policy discussion or would we be able to give our team direction right today? I'm all ears commissioners. I think it's worthy of further discussion. In fact, I think that's necessary. I'm prepared to make a policy decision on that question today. Thank you, commissioner. Yeah, I would like to see them not be able to load accounts certainly until they've actually gotten their certificate of operation because to me, we've had a couple of people who flipped the switch inadvertently a little early. So even if they're gonna start registering people, loading the accounts in my view, and we can absolutely table this if commissioners are not ready, but I don't think they should be loading them for the Massachusetts until they know that person can actually operate in Massachusetts. Agreed. Yep, agreed. So that's okay, commissioner Maynard. I wouldn't deviate from the industry standard, but that said, I would want commissioner Skinner to have the time she needs. Could you just say your first part? Sorry, I would not deviate from the industry standard as it's been explained to me. And like that said, I would want commissioner Skinner to have time make a decision. So I need more information on it. I've indicated the equity issue. And I think perhaps commissioner Maynard, you've also echoed that there's the equity issue, but then there's also, I wonder if there are guardrails we could establish around the risks that we want to prevent. So I could use more time. So I'm in agreement with that. And I think I'm hearing that there's probably no objection to getting more information. We'll just need to figure out our calendar. So Karen is nodding her head, we'll do that. And certainly we have heard the operators and we want to be attentive to them on that. So it needs to be prioritized. And then Mina will have to figure out where it fits into the regulatory scheme, if at all. Okay. Yes. Thank you, ma'am Chair. I think to the extent that, again, this, you know, if needs to be reopened in here, I can see a place for it in here, but it could also go into the sort of, we're working on the sort of form of the license itself that may be a place where it goes. That's not on the regulation, but also some of the finance regs are being finalized and should come before in January. So there may be another opportunity there. Okay. Excellent. So then we go back to a little bit more pedestrian, which was about the dual authentication. Yeah. Real quick, I managed to consult with my team here and we looked up and we found at least one market that we know of offhand who requires multi-factor authentication or the ability to use multi-factor authentication that would be Ontario. And definitely, I don't foresee there being an issue if that got appended to 248.071. And so you made a distinction now, not New Jersey and Pennsylvania, that they don't, they're not, right now they have it for the future, right? And Ontario has it current. So there's two things that, well, I'll go in order. So the original inquiry was, is there any jurisdictions who require the ability to opt in for multi-factor authentication upon each login? And that was the research I had conducted, but there was also the additional research that Gabe and Joe conducted that yielded New Jersey and Pennsylvania to have more of a device side multi-factor authentication or device side re-authentication, which is addressed somewhat within GLI 33, which talks about a shorter form method of authentication versus a long form method of authentication. So a short form would be like facial recognition, something like that. But really here, what I found was for Ontario, they have a requirement says patrons must be given the option to use multi-factor authentication when accessing their account. And I think that wording would best answer. Okay, so that's really helpful. So commissioners, how much do we care about this issue? For the secure, you know, for the patrons as an option. Do we want to impose it now without? I think the option should definitely be available. I agree. I also agree. Commissioner Hill? As long as we're not mandating and giving them the option, I'm gonna be okay with that. For the patrons. And to the extent that we've already seen, I think in the demonstrations, least two of them showed the dual authentication I'm not hearing from GI that it's probably a big business obstruction, but they may not want to weigh in on that, that's okay. So commissioners, I think we have a consensus. Let's put that in and we'll have it out for public opinion, public comment, and we'll get our input that way from the operators. Can I apologize, Madam Chair? I think I missed the exact language that we wanted to add. I don't know if we offered it. Oh, okay. So Madam Chair, just carry on, I'm sorry to ask you to do this again, if you don't mind pulling up the language, the way I heard it and maybe this is same intent, I may not have captured the exact Ontario language is I would put at the beginning of 248.073, I would add in, excuse me for a second, a multi-factor authentication process shall be available for use by all patrons to access their accounts. And then I would say, in addition, a multi-factor authentication process shall be employed for the retrieval or reset of a patron's forgotten, and I guess I would add after that or lost authentication credentials. We just sent over some draft wording, or at least Gabe did. Let me see. I think it was the same effect, either one works, I just said. I like giving the option or else after your language where it shall be available but not be required. You know, maybe it's clear and the Ontario language is truly an opt-in. You know? Oh, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, apologies. Go right ahead. This is the language that Mina just read, I think. Yes. Sorry, Kerry, that was just intended to replace three rather than one. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. But go in front of three, right? I think it captures all of it. I think it ended up replacing. Oh, okay. But I'm certainly just as comfortable. I had written that up just before Mike found the Ontario language, so either one is fine with me. I think it's important to have the option because the way I'm reading it would be that, you know, someone might interpret it as it's required for everyone to access their accounts that the multi-factor authentication like must be used. How about be available but not be required for use? I'm really not wed to my language, Madam Chair, but we can take the Ontario language for this. Okay, thank you. Ontario's doing a great job. Is this Joey's? I'm sorry, I apologize for sort of jumping language on the screen here. This is the language from Joe. Kerry, just to walk everyone through it, I think this would replace the first sentence. Yep. But not the second, of the red, sorry. Yeah, so just replace, yeah, right, everything before that. Oh, okay. Sorry about this, a little messy today. Kerry. Yeah, and then you can have us say the option to use a multi-authentication process just so it's kind of consistent with the second sentence. Yeah, that looks good. How are we feeling, Commissioners? Okay, we can take that then down. And Commissioners, do you have any other questions on the account management and establishment regulation discussion that you just walked us through? With a single suggested amendment. And then with the, on our checklist to follow up on the other issue. We feel good about it? And that's so we could make a motion. I'll take a motion. Don't make me move. Nobody wants to move on this one. I do, but I'm getting myself making sure I have 205CMI248, correct? Make sure I have everything down. Well, yeah, so 248. And then it would just be that single amendment that we discussed on the dual authentication that it's an option. There's also the 248.19 amendment from the treasurer. Oh, there is that. I'm so sorry. My apologies. Must be getting hungry. So there was, there's the two and, and thank you to Pod for being in communication with the treasury and coordinating that. Nice. I said, don't make me move because I wouldn't want to do what you're having to do right now. Happy to move. I move that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft 205CMI248 as included in the commissioners packet discussed here. And as amended here today and discussed by Kerry, I further move that staff be authorized to take steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter. Begin the regulation promulgation process. I further move that the staff shall be authorized to modify chapter section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Second. Thank you. Any further questions or discussion on that, Greg? Okay. Commissioner Bryant. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioners, you know, you've moved on me. Hi. Oh, there you are. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I believe, yes. So that's excellent. Thank you, Amina, for working us through that and for the good discussion. And thank you again to GLI, your expertise is really so, so helpful. Okay. Where are we now, Amina? Madam chair, I just want to clarification. The next one up would be starting on page 60. This is the discipline of sports wagering operators. I wasn't sure if I know that because Director Lilios is not here, you were potentially hoping to save that for a later time. I'm happy to describe it. Let's give folks a chance to think about it and then we can discuss it at a later time or to just leave it all together. I'm going to recommend that we table it. I think there's some memorandum that could be developed in advance of the discussion that might be really helpful and make us a little bit more efficient. And without Loretta, it might make us really inefficient. So if we could table the whole discussion, that would be great. So this was also, this reg, even though it was preserved for a vote, really was tied into what was number four, the discussion. Am I right? Yeah. I just have to remember myself. The discussion on, memory discussion on marketing, for instance, and registrations and gender discipline. Somewhat, it certainly affects that issue, but it's a broader discussion on enforcement under 23N altogether. But yes, certainly. Yeah, I think to your point, without Loretta here, it doesn't, I don't think it makes sense to dive into it without her being here. No, but she was really, she was very helpful to outline so many things that we'd have to talk about, which made me realize we particularly needed her to talk about them. So, so thank you. I think on that, so that would then mean, Nina, your presentation and Loretta's presentation right now has concluded, or is there another ask any matter that I just carry? I believe we are all, well, I'm all set, right? I see Todd and Kerry nodding. So I think that means they're all set. Yep, all set from legal. Thank you, Nina. Commissioners, it's 10 of two. I know that probably everybody's starving, but we're getting close to the conclusion of the agenda we have, Mark, please, and then Karen's update. With that said, should we bow through, or do you want to take a short break, or do you want to take a good lunch break? I'm all ears and amenable to anything that you want. I would defer to the two who are undisclosed locations right now, because whatever they want to do, I'm willing to do. I am too. Today, I am not at an undisclosed location. Thank you for thinking of me. I think we're thinking of the other two, actually. Yeah. Oh. This time we're thinking of the other two. But I don't like to be thinking of you two, Brad, but. On that note, whatever they want, I'll do as well. Thank you. Excellent. I'm happy to move forward. I've already ditched the blouse for tank tops. So I think if we can get through these next couple of sections fairly quickly, I'm comfortable with that. I'm fine. Thank you. I'm fine with that. And I'm very jealous of the weather that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, especially as I curl up in my cardigan more. All right. So we have director Vandal and we'll go right into this. Section five agenda item, excuse me. Number five and there's Dr. Andrews. Good to see you. Thank you. That can mean chairwoman Jettstein and commissioners. And you're absolutely right. We're, we're adding layers rather than taking them off this point. So I'm here with Dr. Bonnie Andrews and we're here to talk with you about the sports wagering studies that have been mandated by the 2022 act to regulate sports wagering and MGL chapter 23K. So if you recall earlier this month on December 9th, we brought to you research plans that we deal with meet that statutory requirement that are outlined in those two pieces. The first was MGL 23 and section 20 which is a research study examining the feasibility of allowing retail locations in the Commonwealth to operate sports wagering kiosk. The second is section 25 research study on the participation by minority business enterprises, women business enterprises and veteran business enterprises in the sports wagering industry in the Commonwealth. Your feedback was very helpful on December 9th. And Bonnie and I have carefully reviewed the video of that meeting as well as taken notes. And we've made a number of edits to those two research plans that are both outlined in the memo that we have for you. We also gave you a red line version of the two research plans as well as clean versions. We are happy to proceed by walking through with you the sort of the specific changes that we made or if you rather just have a more free flowing conversation we can go any direction you would like. My shoes doesn't make sense for him to go through the changes at this juncture rather than free flowing. And commission and Dr. Andrews, it's my last. Yes. Okay. All right, great. And Bonnie, feel free to chime in where you feel like I'm missing a point here but I'll go ahead and take the lead on this. So I'm just gonna kind of walk through the changes that are outlined as we have them outlined in the attached memo. So the first we're going to deal with the section 20 research plan for the feasibility of allowing retail kiosks. So Commissioner Hill, you made a couple of points here about making sure that we are including veteran's disability organizations among the retail locations access that are mentioned in this document. And so as a result, there's we added within the methodology amongst the types of entities that we would consult that we added applicable business organizations including veterans organizations and fraternal organizations. We also added on various types of retail locations to make sure that we added veterans and fraternal organizations. Commissioner Hill, you also had a question, will the researchers be consulting with restaurant ears and people of these organizations? As I recall, even before we released this, you had mentioned this to me. So we went through and we made sure that we included that within the methodology section about who should be consulted. Commissioner O'Brien, you mentioned impact on the lottery. And so we went back and we added that the successful applicant should consider multiple sources of information and added within that list economic data from MGC licensees and other economic reports and data. This was actually a Commissioner O'Brien one that as I was kind of reviewing this and thinking about it, I wanted to make sure that we captured this correctly. So that's the end and Commissioner Hill too or anybody please stop us along the way if you feel like we didn't quite get this right. We're very much invested in making sure that we have your points addressed in this document. Okay, so I will continue on. Commissioner O'Brien and Chair Jed Stein, you asked that we obtain input from the IEB in terms of ability to oversee the integrity of these kiosks, a very good point. And so we made sure that we added the MGC IEB included in the methodology section of who we would be consulting here. Commissioner O'Brien, you mentioned specific public safety related concerns about the use of cash within these retail locations. So we added a specific piece about the anticipated security, safety and potential crime related impacts of sports wagering kiosks at retail locations. So that was added as a question within the document. And the only thing I would say is not just sort of within the four walls of the building, but if people are marked and followed, people know that they do it a lot maybe, I don't know, and they're gonna be carrying cash. You know, almost reverse with somebody winning and then walking out of the casino with a lot of money. If people know that somebody likes to bet a lot and they go in with cash. So when you're looking at that, just make sure that that's sort of the breadth of the query. Okay. We can take a look at that. I'm just looking at the memo right now, but we can certainly make sure that it includes both within the retail location as well as patrons, yeah. Okay, very good. Chair Jettstein, you were interested in the IEB or guidance related to the integrity, security and surveillance? And so we added a couple pieces here under methodology. We made sure that we, again, we made sure that the IEB was included in that, as well as a specific question where we asked what are the associated costs with regulation, monitoring, investigation and enforcement related to sportsway during kiosks for the MGC investigation and enforcement bureau. But we also were curious about this for other agencies within the Commonwealth you may be involved. Thanks. Okay. Commissioner Skinner, you had a question about kind of extending on the question about responsible gaming measures. How would it affect individuals who are on the voluntary self-exclusion list? And I recall feeling like, how did we miss that piece? So it was a very good point. And so we added under a question about what measures should be considered to restrict access to kiosks for persons on the voluntary self-exclusion list. And finally for this piece, Commissioner Maynard, you noted that wouldn't really change any draft that was wondering how broad is a retail location such as gas stations. So we moved forward with defining retail locations and breadth of what we would include. But also noted that the legislation didn't specifically define what a retail location would include. So that is the extent of the changes that we made to the research plan for section 20. More than happy. Yes, Bonnie. Oh, I apologize. I would add that for the last point, we didn't make any changes in the draft to further define retail locations beyond the examples that we already gave and the edits that are noted in the memo. Thank you. So Chair Jedson, before we move on to section 25, may I ask for any feedback that commissioners have? Commissioners, do you have any additional requests or any clarifications? No requests except to say thank you. Obviously you listened very hard to what we had to say and we're appreciative that you incorporated and adopted the concerns that we had. And I say thank you for that. You're very welcome, Commissioner. And I think that you're looking for a vote on this particular study so that it can move forward to Commissioner Hill's former colleagues. Yes, for both of them, since there is a deadline of December 31st for delivery to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. So why don't we turn first to this study if we're giving a green light to Mark and team? I'm ready to give it a green light and make a motion. Thank you. Madam Chair, I would move that the commission approved the research plan for a prospective study of the feasibility and impact of sports wagering kiosks in retail locations as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Any further discussion? Excellent work and thank you. I'm glad that our discussion was fruitful for you. Excellent, all right. Any other? It was. And Bonnie and I, we're talking about this, that just it's really helpful to get your impressions and feedback on it always. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. So Nick will turn to section 20. Just one second. Just one second. We have to go to the wrong floor. Oh, I'm so sorry. I think you know how it's going to go. But I did say, okay. I'm going to weigh that. That's just with a, okay. Commissioner Ryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five zero. Okay. Director. You think I would have this down by now. I clearly do not. Thank you so much. Okay, now we'll continue on the next one. Okay. So Nick's is the section 25 study. And we have for you a research plan for the study of the participation by minority women and veteran owned business enterprises in the sports waging industry in Massachusetts. There were just a couple, I think key points that we pulled from this. First was that there was a comment about making sure that we coordinate with Crystal Oceman in the gathering information concerning diversity, equity and inclusion in the sports waging industry. And especially kind of leaning on Crystal's expertise in this specific area, which we certainly intend to do for this study moving forward as we begin to scope it out and release an RFR for it. The second, and this was an interesting point. We were drawing specifically from section 20, exact language from section 25, but there were a few pieces in here that within that the legislation where it mentioned diversity, racial and gender diversity, but it didn't necessarily mention diversity in terms of veteran status for women owned business enterprises. And so we went through and we just cleaned that up to make sure that we included within their veteran owned businesses and women owned businesses throughout the document. Bonnie, did I capture that correct? I'm sorry. Yes, you did. All right, great. Anything further on that? Not for me, Bonnie, was there anything that I missed in that? No. Okay, so commissioners, any questions for either Bonnie or Mark? All right, excellent job. And again, thank you for being great listeners to our concerns. Do I have a motion on this study? Madam Chair, I would move that the commission can approve the research plan for a study of the participation by minority women and veteran business enterprises in the sports wagering industry in Massachusetts as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Okay, for the discussion edits, Mr. O'Brien. Aye. Mr. Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. And Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So just some business, I suspect that that's going to go, those will go in packets to the legislature and the correct individuals at the legislature. And it probably will require some kind of a cover letter with perhaps you want the commissioners signatures included by our vote today. Are we authorizing the use of our electronic signatures? Is that, unless it goes under, okay, great. If that's what you choose to do, Mark, we've got full authorization from us to include our electronic authorizations. I didn't want you to have to seek out another commission. That sounds fantastic. And I'll make sure to coordinate with General Counsel Grossman and Executive Director Wells to make sure that we're submitting that correctly. Yeah, however you submit it. And then, and of course, Crystal can be helpful as well as Trudy. So thank you so much. Great work. We've met that deadline and congratulations. So thank you. Thank you. All right. And now we're turning to Executive Director Wells, item number six in your sports wagering update, please. Yes. So I'll be brief. Because the commission passed 247 and 248 today, I do have an update that does enable the team and GLI to go forward with the verification of the sports wagering chaos at the category one facilities. So we have scheduled that testing to begin on January 16th. This gives them some time to get their hardware, software, everything together, to GLI coordinate and then do onsite testing on the 16th. So thank you for doing that. That does impact the schedule. If you'd like me to discuss that, we can discuss some dates, but that was the update I had for you for that. And I'm prepared to discuss a little more on the, how that impacts the schedule if you would like. I'm interested in that. Okay. He's anxious for that. That's good. Absolutely. So the way we're looking at it and many, many thanks to Crystal Bochumann for the help on all coordinating all the puzzle pieces. There are a lot of puzzle pieces going on here because there's a lot of things happening simultaneously. But what I would suggest for the scheduling, if we have the testing done on the 16th and afterwards, the hope and expectation is that if the chaos and all the software IT components are all working properly, and that's significant that it has to be dependent on that. GLI, their whole business is based on integrity so they cannot pass over any kind of issue with respect to the equipment. And I see Joe's raising his hand. Did you have a comment before? Yes, Joe. I do. I just want to be clear that the, since 247 and 248 are now passed and I could go read that statement I read 14 times in a row the last two weeks, the labs can now take the software in for laboratory testing. And the event on events post the 16th will be verification of that software's deployment on to the hardware in the locations for CAT1s. So that the operators just don't freak out that they're... Oh, thank you. If they're listening. That isn't much better explanation. Verification. The only clarification I'd want legal to do is even the approvals today though, it actually doesn't go until they file them with the Secretary of State. I don't think it affects your timeline at all but I don't think they're gonna be filed until next week. I'm not mistaken. I think Carrie is actually on her way to file them today. Oh, she is. Okay. If I'm not mistaken. And can I just point of clarification? We're speaking about chaos. Is this also, forgive me, verification of the We're going to say all the where the tellers are for those who do in person, but they customer service individual. Yes. That's right. Yes, yes. So it's really the retail operation. Thank you. The operation. Yeah. Thank you. So thank you for the help on that, Joe. So speaking with the team and GLI if that's done starting the 16th if there is an affirmative determination by GLI that everything is in order, then the expectations we would potentially come back before the commission on the 27th of January because we still need to have that certificate of operations voted on by the commission. So that would involve the GLI certification and making sure everything is in order before launch and then that gives a couple of days for the operators were proposing. They do a soft launch on the 30th and that includes just basically having real life testing with parties. You may remember this from the casino launches where they would have staff and invited guests only be allowed to bet in the past. They've had that to donate the proceeds from that donated to charity. You can work out how you would like to handle that. You'll need to decide that today. And that would allow for a launch on the 31st. But Karen, that does involve the commissioners and we did a little. Yes, we did. You want to go through that? Yes. So the commission there was with the casinos and we'd expect in the same thing with the retail launch of sports wagering because the commission gives the certificate of operations on the 27th. Historically, they assigned a commissioner to go to the property when they're doing the soft launch or the test night or however they want to use whatever terminology they want to use for that. And then that commissioner would make sure everything was in order and sign off for the launch the next day. So we did go through. We had, we pulled names from a cup crystal and Kathy and I did that. Did you want to reveal the assignments, Kathy? Or how do you want to handle that? So the process was as I had promised, it wasn't out of a hat. So not complete promise, but out of a pop that had a lid that got struck up. And then names were drawn from that cup with crystal and Karen participating. And Karen has a record of which commissioners would be assigned to the testing of the three facilities and Commissioner O'Brien took herself out of her. Barification. Oh my gosh. I just circled verification of the verification. And thank you, Joe. And I took Karen to reveal what the results were. Madam chair. Yes, commissioner. I'm sorry, it might, there might be an opportunity for commissioner O'Brien to put her hat back in because I'm not available on the 30th. And I communicated that to a couple of you already. Well, I am the 30th is the soft launch day. And I can't say that that was probably that it came that was on the schedule. So yeah, that's the first, this is the first I'm hearing about the soft launch date. Well, this is the first that this is why commit, this is why executive director Wells is addressing it to everyone. Yeah, no, no, no. It's already been decided clearly because you drew. Yeah. Let's shoot through names out of a hat. I'm just not available. So commissioner O'Brien, I mean, I, you know, hopefully will be available. I'm happy to step in if I need it. I did it because I've done an opening already. So I want everything to have a chance to do it. But I'm happy to do it if it's necessary. Yeah. And I regret not having an opportunity. I did I did communicate with with you, Karen, in particular, not to put you on the spot, but I did. Okay. So, Karen, why don't you say, where would commissioner Maynard go? Fisher Maynard at Clarence Park Casino. Where would commissioner Hill go? MGM. I'll go wherever you want me to go. No, we pulled the hat. We pulled your name out of the hat. This was the decided. No, no debate. It was so that was fair and square. And then commissioner Skinner was assigned to on Boston Harbor. Commissioner O'Brien, you had expressed that you wouldn't be able to do it. I know commissioner Skinner was, had expressed a desire of peers that she's not available. Commissioner O'Brien, you're available to do it. I'm fine to cover for commissioner Skinner. That's fine. Excellent. So that would be the testing on the 30th and that's the soft launch date for retail. And then. Madam chair, I have a, I have to ask. Commissioner Skinner, I have one more thing. If you just want to finish my thought it might help you out. Okay. And then we thought because it is, it is a momentous occasion to launch the retail. If everything goes right with the verification process and the, and each commissioner that's assigned to that facility reports back, we thought that it would be an opportunity for the commissioners, all of us, a subset of us to go in some organized fashion to each facility to say hello. It would not be necessarily when they turn the switch on but at some point to acknowledge their hard work and a continued, of course, collaboration and if this all works to plan. And so that would be another opportunity to see how things look. And so commissioner Skinner, I don't know what day that is. Think what day you're thinking of that. Secretary Director Wells, I think you were going to maybe work with Mills on that. Or would the, that would be the soft launch would it be the next day? What would be? The launch the 31st. The launch the 31st. Commissioner Skinner, are you available on the 31st? So, so what I'm, I just, I want to make a request is there's any flexibility in this launch schedule, the soft launch? Is there any reason why we couldn't do this but the verification on the 31st with a February 1st launch? Because again, I did communicate again with a couple of folks that I was not available on Monday, the 30th. And so I, you know, would have at least liked to have a discussion in advance of this public discussion. Commissioner Skinner, I'm out of ideas. Mike, if someone could answer my question, what is the flexibility and postponing the verification for a day and therefore the soft launch for a day? What's the objection to that? How does that impact the schedule? Commissioner Skinner, I think the only objection I have raised is that we have a team that is working very hard to put all the pieces in place. Yes, I'm part of that team, Madam Chair. You are, I guess I'm segregating commissioners out from that. If you'll allow me for just a moment. And so I can tell you that I don't know if I'll even be available on any of those days. I know that you have this, you know, you're saying that I'm not even sure what your schedule is that I'm sorry. I didn't know about 30th. This was presented as a plan and it is coming up. And I think there was logic attached. I think- Madam Chair, you are also on the email that I can, that I, where I communicated this. You were also on that email. You know what, commissioner Skinner, I apologize if I didn't keep track of it. I, you know, I can only just say I did not keep track of it. And honestly, I can say too is that every commissioner has different varying different schedules. I can say that. So what I'm hearing is that you would like us to postpone business in light of your schedule. And I am reluctant to just go ahead and say, sure. Even though I would love to, I am trying to take into consideration all of the, all of the interests and issues involved in all of these processes. And that's not to be unfair to any particular commissioner. It is to try to keep our business of the commission and the state as a state agency going. So- That is my request and it's a day. Okay, commissioners, commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, I'm going to go in an order. I, whatever the majority wants to do, I'm not, I have not been intimately involved. I would love to be able to honor the request if it's possible, but I also realized there's a, you know, whether there was fault or not, the reality is people are queued up. I just don't know the back logistics of it, whether the executive director knows or not, I would defer to the team. Commissioner Skirner, I can tell you that if I think back at the calendar last night, there certainly was consideration for your schedule. And somehow maybe the 30th was omitted, but there were other dates that were on there. So people are really trying to be a whole, you know, everyone's schedule and consideration. Commissioner, so I don't want anyone to think, anyone's dismissing anything. Commissioner Maynard, I mean, Commissioner Hill. I would like to stick with the schedule that we put into place, Madam Chair. With my, I've put my schedule together as well. And unfortunately I can't even make a day change. And I apologize to my fellow commissioners on that. There was a schedule put out and I've tried to work around what was put out the best I can. So at this point, if we can keep to the schedule that's been put into place, I would be appreciative of that. And I was like that, but had there been a schedule that was brought before this commission to talk about, then I would understand that, but there wasn't. This was a termination that was made prior to today or presented today for the very first time to the commissioners. Secretary Director Wells, can you help me out here? How are you managing the schedule and who are you working with? Yeah, just working with the chair and Crystal, but I think the impetus for the date was also, we had put out publicly that we were looking to launch by the end of December. So in order, and pardon me, the end of January. So that's where this comes from is that there had been a public expectation by the end of January and we are all working so hard, but we need those extra days. So I don't think we can do it any earlier. So that would bump it into the next month. That was the reason. It's one commissioner Maynard. I have a question and Karen, please don't string on me. Is there a way we could move it back? Is there a way we can move it back to accommodate and keep commissioner Skinner's schedule but not disrupt anything? I think that we had recalled commissioner Skinner being on vacation before that anyway. So that was part of the reason, but also the GLI and the team need time and you have to do the certificate of operations. So if the certificate of operations in 27, I don't think commissioner Skinner's available that weekend as well. Is that right now? Correct, right. That's the problem. I am asking for the 31st and the 1st as opposed to the 30th and the 31st. I am going to say that. I think that we've been making it clear by public that we would have it done by the end of January and commissioner Skinner, to the extent that this means that you would still be able to, well, I don't. I guess it sounds like you're not available the 30th to 31st. When? I am available on the 31st. You are. Then you could do the, you could go to each facility. You just would not be involved in the individual testing. But I would like to be involved in the individual testing. You know what? I understand. I am, I feel that we've made a commitment to a deadline and the end of January is the end of January and it's not February 1st. So I think like you have consensus so you can move forward. I'm struggling here because of, I am so trying to be accommodating commissioner Skinner. You know, it just would have been nice if someone had reached out to me for this public meeting. If that my schedule was not going to be able to be accommodated. At least one out of the three individuals who I communicated with. Could and should have reached out to me before now. I, I have to say, I probably lost track of that the 30th, you weren't available. I can personally take it. I'm fully accountable for not going back into my emails to see that that was one of the days. That you weren't available. Well, clearly at least Karen and Karen, I'm sorry, I have to say this, but clearly you at least knew. What my availability was for that entire weekend. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You just stated it. No, I just, I just don't know now. I thought it was the 25th and the 26th. I just didn't recall. Again, madam chair, you have the consensus. So the 30th and 31. Are the dates. I think I should just clarify. It's. It's probably not a consensus. I think it's more. As we as. And I have to say, when did this? We had a meeting yesterday. Was that right? No, we didn't have a meeting yesterday. We had our event yesterday for the, the team. For the commissioners who were there. Then. Around three o'clock. From five o'clock. But it's because I could direct a Wells came in and, and went through a calendar with me. I have not had any discussion with any commissioner on this. But I think that's a. An older. 0 Later on the crystal proposed. Was all in concert with the entire team. To work out the verification process for the soft launch by the end of January. And I have. Really. I think we, we gave the discretion to executive. Well, director wells, when we, when we did establish our timeline. To come up with. And we could delegate it to a member of the team, but it is nice that the commissioners can be involved. Just so for history, I understand the first time there was one casino and one commissioner went, it wasn't clear who was going to go the next two times or whatever. So the process, you know, because the senors weren't built in this case, I did want each of you to have the opportunity and I remember Commissioner Brian, you know, seating her spot because she had had the experience before. So it was fully our intention, and the intention to include you was clear. I didn't pull your name out of the cup, I think Karen did or whatever. So it was unintentional that this was a day that you were not available. It was intentional to include you. But what was really intentional was the calendar as I saw laying out every single date, what needed to be accomplished in order to get to that soft launch day. But what you're asking is for the state. You're the only one that's seeing the calendar. Madam chair, so you know why, because I, that's kind of part of my job in sharing. And so I spent a couple of hours going over the calendar with yes. And now today we're discussing it and I just asked executive director Wells to do it. But yes, they were quite appropriate to come to me. On the end of the work day, they stayed late. It was quite they were quite appropriate to come to me so that they could start working on the agenda for going forward and then in fact go over today's discuss. Commissioner Skinner. It was not because I'm holding anything back. It's because it was appropriate for them to come to me. And I think that that process will continue into the future. And so I think what we have is we've got a situation where the. And I think we've, I am, I'm sad that it's a disappointment for you, Commissioner Skinner but I do think in this instance, there'll still be an opportunity for you to visit on the facilities, see what's going on and rely on Commissioner Brian's testing in good faith. So the process for verification is would be on the Friday before. The Friday the 27th would be the certificate of operations. Is in that will be a public meeting that we need to be at. Right. Everybody available for that. I am not hearing any. That's not available madam chair from from January 25th through January 30th. I have had long standing plans on my calendar. For at least a year now. Relative to that timeframe. I cannot move my commitment, which is why I communicated. Commissioner Skinner, I did understand 24 the 26 I did not understand that it went for that many days. I'm sorry, Commissioner Skinner, I am going to have to abide by what I understand is best practice of any organization, any, and that's private in my experience on any organization or public organization. I think that where there's a quorum, we will have to continue our work. I've already said you have consensus to move on on the 30th and 31st we're spending way too much time on this topic at this point. No, but I want to just point out that I'm hearing that also on the public meeting on that Friday. I'm now hearing that you're not available for that, but we will continue our work on the certification. Okay. Thank you. And if you want to, you know, if you, for all the details, I know that the that the crystal and Trudy will be filling in all of the details of January for the scheduling. That was probably why they went through it with me. Did I make any changes to the calendar Karen, based on any individual commissioners request or needs. No. That was all a factor of the work that was needing to get done. Okay. Commissioners. Do we have Karen, do you want to go through anything else? Okay. Commissioner update. I see something about the litigation reporting and I'm not sure if that was something that was particular from a particular commissioner. I, if not, then I will table that discussion for another time. Okay. Okay. I'm not sure if that was something that was particular from the commissioners. Because I don't think we're prepared to discuss that. All right. With that said, is there any other business commissioners. The only thing I'd like to say, and I know we all think this and I'm sure everyone's going to say it. So I'm just jumping in to say it first, which is to thank staff because I know however tiring it was, particularly this week when the, the long meeting, etc. It's done. And so I just hope everybody gets to have a restful holiday as best as possible with their families this week. And I just want to thank everybody for the time that they've been putting in. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Do you want to say I just want to wish everybody a very happy holiday and share my thanks with the staff as well. I got to do that a little bit yesterday on a personal level but publicly. You are the best and you're doing a great job getting us through all of this. And believe me, it's not easy. So, on behalf of me, say, I want to say thank you to all of you and happy holidays teaching everyone. Commissioner Skinner, I agree with what's already been said. I want to also add my thanks to the staff. But you know, the acrylic, and efforts have been shown over the course of the implementation. So thank you. Thank you commissioner Maynard. I agree and I think that, you know, this is an a plus plus organization, full of great people who every day from the day I started, know, I guess till now have, have made sure that I have the information that I need. It's appreciated, happy holidays, however you celebrate it, and I hope that it's a restful time. Commissioner, thank you for all of your work and all of your dedication. As I've said, you know, frequently in our public meetings, this has been an enormous effort. We are supported by a team of excellence, and we're supported by a team who has shown just great professional commitment, and I personally have relied on every single member of this team's expertise and input in this public setting. We look to you for guidance, and I am so thankful for the outside consultants who have been with us along the way. That includes, of course, A&K, and includes GLI and RSM, who have been very, very helpful. They have to shown a great deal of resilience and nimbleness, but to our team, you've been extraordinary. I hope that you get some rest, but I know also that there's continuing work. Enjoy the time with your family. I can, as a mother and now a grandmother, I know I'm going to have that benefit of having everybody here, but I also can say that I have the benefit of adult children who have checked in frequently with me to say, you know, what's your schedule, mom? How can we make it easier for you? And for that, I'm grateful to my family and all of our families who are showing that resilience and that support. They're doing work that came to us. It came to us by legislation, and I am so proud of the commitment of this agency to stand up the lawn as they expected us to do and knew that we would be able to do it well. So let's continue on that effort. And I can also say that for those who have younger children, I can only hope that your children when they're my kid's age will say, you know, we understood what you did and contributions you made and we're proud of you for that. So you know, for those of you with the little ones, I've given them another 20 years and I hope that they acknowledge that because I am the beneficiary of that now. So everyone enjoy the rest of the holiday period for so many of you and us. And for those who are going to be celebrating in the short few days, be mindful of the weather. Be careful because I think it's going to be kind of a complex day tomorrow. And for those of you who we will be seeing next week, perhaps for a short public meeting, thank you and otherwise happy new year. I made 2023 be filled with lots of good laughter, good joy and peace and good health. We're right with that. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Oh, thanks. Second. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Happy holidays, everyone. We're.